Conflict Management Examination - Assignment Example

Conflict Management MG 614 Summer 2009 Take-home Final Examination You happen to work closely with four colleagues, each having a different social style. One is an analytical, one an amiable, one a driver, and one an expressive. Using your knowledge of social style, discuss how you would go about working with each of them to keep their tension level down, reduce conflict, and build a successful working relationship. For more than 50 years, Tracom Corporation was known to provide trainings and assistance to individuals and corporations in improving interpersonal relations though awareness of the social styles. The abovementioned scenario is therefore best answered using Tracom’s social style model. With four colleagues exhibiting four diverse social styles, I would be able to work with each of them by being versatile and flexible. I should be able to jump into each other’s style box and encourage each to work by being consistent with the social style they are most comfortable with. I should bring out the best in each social style and avoid conflict by acknowledging that I am aware of the characteristics that each social style is exhibiting and that I can work with them by not imposing one style over the other. By emphasizing that each of their own unique styles would be helpful in producing a good work product, I would encourage harmony, unity and teamwork among colleagues. In working with the analytical, I should recognize the following traits: value facts above all, and may appear uncommunicative, cool and independent. The analytical person has a strong time discipline coupled with a slow pace to action. He/she value accuracy, competency and logic over opinions, often avoiding risk in favor of cautious, deliberate decisions. Analyticals are usually cooperative, providing they have some freedom to organize their own efforts. In addition, analyticals like to “get it right” and think a lot about issues. They don’t declare their ideas as quickly as others and they withdraw under stress. The driver wants to know the estimated outcome of each option. He/she is willing to accept risks, but want to move quickly and has the final say. In relationships, he/she may appear uncommunicative, independent and competitive. Driving styles tend to focus on efficiency or productivity rather than devoting time and attention to casual relationships. He/she seldom sees a need to share personal motives or feelings.  Driving styles are results-oriented, tending to initiate action and give clear direction. One seeks control over their environment. The amiable is people-oriented, and cares more about close relationships than results or influence. He/she usually appears warm, friendly and cooperative. Amiables tend to move slowly with a low time discipline, minimizing risk and often using personal opinions to arrive at decisions. Belonging to a group is a primary need, and amiables may make every effort to gain acceptance. He/she typically seeks to uncover common ground, preferring to achieve objectives through understanding and mutual respect rather than force and authority. When managed by force without relationship, Amiables appear to cooperate initially but will likely lack commitment to the objectives and may later resist implementation. Finally, the expressive is motivated by recognition, approval and prestige. One tends to appear communicative and approachable, often sharing their feelings and thoughts. He/she moves quickly, continually excited about the next big idea, but they often don’t commit to specific plans or see things through to completion. Expressives enjoy taking risks. When making decisions, one tends to place more stock in the opinions of prominent or successful people than in logic or research. Though one considers relationships important, the Expressive’s competitive nature leads them to seek quieter friends who are supportive of their dreams and ideas, often making relationships shallow or short-lived. 2. Make a list of obstacles that keep you from applying Covey’s Win-Win paradigm more frequently Obstacles that keep one from applying Covey’s Win-Win paradigm more frequently: (1) the character of both parties differ greatly; (2) there is imbalance in integrity, maturity, and abundance mentality; (3) there is no trust; (4) there is focus on personalities and positions; (5) there is no focus on relationships and no emotional maturity; (6) agreements define methods and not results; (7) reward system does not support the win/win paradigm; (8) problem in the system – not in the people; (9) focus on positional base process – instead of need principle. Determine what could be done within your Circle of Influence to eliminate some of those obstacles. Unity is vital in win-win situations. One must apply the five dimensions of win-win thinking within one’s Circle of Influence, to wit: character, relationships, agreement, supporting systems, and processes. One must be both courageous and confident. There should be a balance between courage and consideration. By being aware of the obstacles, one would be able to focus on the traits that need to be emphasized such as relationships, the three character traits (integrity, maturity and abundance mentality) and the other dimensions to ensure a win-win scenario. Select a specific relationship where you would like to develop a Win/Win agreement. Try to put yourself in the other person’s place and write down explicitly how you think that person sees the solution. A neighborhood accords limited parking spaces for residents who own more than one vehicle. When a resident (me, in this case) with three vehicles, parks 2 of the vehicles in front of the house (apparently with one vehicle in front of the neighbor’s house), there is a conflict. The neighbor does not want the resident to park his vehicle along the driveway because it would be difficult to drive their vehicle in and out. The neighbor wants the resident’s vehicle out of front drive of her house. What would constitute a Win for that person? A win for the person naturally is the removal of the vehicle out of the front drive of her house. Then list, from your perspective, what results would constitute a Win for you. Note: You do not need to solve the conflict. A win for me (as the resident) is finding alternative parking spaces for my extra vehicles where I can see that the vehicles remain safe and secure. It could be out of the neighbor’s front drive but still within site (just not blocking her driveway). It could be an alternative parking space which would be arranged with any other lot owner of the same subdivision – but not yet utilized. It could be determining the time when the neighbor’s vehicle comes in and out and removing my vehicle during those times. 3. Read the article on the Brooklyn Flea appearing in The New York Times on July 26. You might want to check out the various websites on the Flea. However, please be advised that some language on the sites might be considered offensive. Who has a stake in the Flea? List the various stakeholders. The following have stakes in the Brooklyn Flea: Jonathan Butler and Eric Demby, founders of Brooklyn Flea, Parishioners of Queen of All Saints Catholic Church, Msgr. Andrew J. Vaccari, Patricia Mulcahey, owner of Tillie’s coffee shop, Leticia James, City Councilwoman – Supporter of the Flea, Valmonette Montgomery, State Senator – Supporter of the Flea, Bishop Loughlin Memorial High School – where rent for the grounds is paid, John Soraci, architect, Vendors, all numbering 100, Marketgoers, and Unhappy neighbors. What are the interests in favor of the Flea? Who has those interests? The flea generates profits from rental of vendors for the stalls; purchase and patronizing products by marketgoers benefit vendors and nearby shops; the rent for the grounds is paid to the nearby memorial high school; the local government benefits through taxes paid for commercial permits and for income generated by the founders and the vendors; among others. The following people gain from the Flea: Jonathan Butler and Eric Demby, founders of Brooklyn Flea, Patricia Mulcahey, owner of Tillie’s coffee shop, Leticia James, City Councilwoman – Supporter of the Flea, Valmonette Montgomery, State Senator – Supporter of the Flea, Bishop Loughlin Memorial High School – where rent for the grounds is paid, John Soraci, architect and supporter of the Flea, Vendors, all numbering 100 and Marketgoers. What are the interests against the Flea? Who has those interests? The Flea attracts a regular 5,000 people every Sunday, apart for the initial 20,000 on its opening day. This caused a lot of noise, crowded place, and alleged disrespect for the Catholic churchgoers. Those against the Flea are the unhappy neighbors who have to contend with the noise, barrage of people who flock to buy from the vendors, parishioners of Queen of All Saints Catholic Church, Msgr. Andrew J. Vaccari. Is there possibly some latent or displaced conflict in this situation? Explain. Latent conflict, by definition, is a conflict that should be occurring but is not. Displaced conflict, on the other hand, is where the parties are arguing about the wrong things. Therefore, I believe that the case exemplifies some displaced conflict (rather than latent) in that parties argue about different things. One averred that it is a case of gentrification (“the process of renewal and rebuilding accompanying the influx of middle-class or affluent people into deteriorating areas that often displaces poorer residents” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2009.) Still, someone insisted that the issue is the sanctity of Sunday. What are two actions in the case that are examples of win/lose thinking and why? The parishioners’ insistence that the Flea be moved from Sunday to another day, or by dictating business hours is one action which is an example of win/lose thinking: the parishioners win but the founders and other stakeholders lose. Another example is by insisting that they do nothing, the founders and other stakeholders do not propose any solutions to the complaints of the other parties; thereby, this is a win/lose situation. The founders win while the parishioners lose. What are two actions in the case that are examples of win/win thinking and why? The examples of win/win thinking in the case are: (1) by promoting the Flea, the founders and other business owners within the neighborhood gain by the throng of marketgoers who patronize the Flea; (2) that the market paid rent for the grounds to Bishop Loughlin Memorial High School, and offered discounted booths to nonprofit organizations. These are win/win situations because the Flea benefits both parties by gaining profits due to the influx of people who patronize the Flea. Develop at least three win/win suggestions for the Flea. Discuss why you think they are win/win. Win/win suggestions for the Flea include the following: (1) go through the four major steps in the integrative negotiation process seen by most experts, to wit: identifying and defining the problem, understanding the problem and bringing interests and needs to the surface, generating alternative solutions to the problem and choosing a specific solution from among those alternatives; (2) both parties should be willing, open-minded, flexible and creative in thinking of alternative courses of action which could be beneficial for both like: rescheduling the Flea to another day or adjusting the time so as not to directly conflict with church masses; (3) if the day(s) could not be rescheduled due to the number of people who patronize the Flea on weekends, try to find alternative places to hold the Flea market on Sundays so as not to disrupt church services. Works Cited Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2009. "gentrification." Merriam-Webster Online. 17 August 2009 Read More