Managing Effective Organisations: Conflict and Teamwork - Coursework Example

Managing effective organisations Conflict and Teamwork Introduction Conflict implies diverse things to various individuals. For some, it may arise from varied meaning of contention. For others, it might be a distinction in point of view or identity. There should be a reputable structure to help control conflict and Teamwork issues when they occur. This essay will consider the accompanying themes; conflict and Teamwork, and its related models, in setting to the impact it has on the general implementation of an organisation. Besides, an examination of my selected authoritative experience or strife circumstance will be completed, connecting it with the two chosen themes and recognising which models could have been utilised to determine the circumstance. At last, the exposition will finish up with an intelligent piece on my experience utilising the models examined and how it will be advantageous to me in my future advancement or profession. Conflict In order to develop theory on conflict resolution, it is valuable to consider the nature of conflict itself. Huczynski and Buchanan (2007: 764) defines conflict is a procedure that starts when one party sees that another party has contrarily influenced, or is going to adversely influence, something the primary party thinks about. While the start of a conflict is encircled as a result of discernment, confirmation of conflict does not surface until either party’s activities are impacted by these recognitions. It is extremely uncommon that you run over homo liberal gatherings or groups inside an organisation. Meaning each member of a group or representative does not have a similar aptitude sets and conclusions. Subsequently, because of the heterogeneity of teams and groups, there are always bound to be conflicts. Generally, the work of "Conflict" have a tendency to excite strong feelings that, it’s awful and must be maintained a strategic distance from else it may wait and rot, bringing about the crumple of the business. Though, in recent times there has been a rise of a more adjusted perspective of conflict. It is presently seen as having the forthcoming of either positive or negative results, or both, subject to how it is taken care of (Gabriel, 2011). If conflict is issued properly, it might motivate those quests to resourceful alternatives; build those inclusion levels of aggregation parts. Also contention again courses about move could prompt better choices. On the contrary, if exited unresolved, it might bring about negative propensities for example, low morale, less inspiration and low collaboration from gathering parts alternately disappointments and outrage on his/her staff. De Dreu (2008) contended that clash will generally bring a negative impact around an association since those examination support its positivity will be feeble. De Dreu (2008) proposed that the objective for each association may be to wrist bindings clash as it were that maximizes those certain impacts whilst minimizing its negative results. Conflict can be viewed in varied perspectives. Alan Fox (1966) acknowledged four different approaches or frame of reference for managing conflict; unitarist, pluralist, radical and interactionalist perspectives on the other hand, the first three are commonly used in assessing conflict situations. The unitarist point of view on conflict views organisations as basically amicable and strong elements, which comprise of devoted labourer administration groups that work in coordination towards the accomplishment of hierarchical objectives. It visualises work put conflict as adverse and ought to be maintained a strategic distance from. It also holds that supervisors are able to do for all time changing the states of mind of representatives in a conflict circumstance using compelling conflict determination strategies (Ackroyd and Thompson, 1999, referred to in Huczynski and Buchanan, 2013:729). From the pluralist perspective the organisations consider separate groups with the unadulterated interests such as conflict between them is obligatory and even desirable, since each group will endeavour to achieve its own goals that they have set out. Each party recognise the need for parleying and compromise for the organisation to function like it should. The problem that come along the way need to manage properly and professionally so that the organisation goals are met with the attentiveness of each group to make sure there is equal survival. The reference thus rebuffs the prospective that employees and the management goals are par and utilises the epidemics of conflict as a relation-regulatory tool to help keep an eye on the employment relationships (Bratton, 2015). The stringent view of conflict considers the workplace as a war zone for the conflict between personnel and managers. The capitalist logic of profit maximization and capital acquisition, motivate managers acting as agents of the shareholders to consistently drive down the cost of production which includes taking control of the manufacturing process and the labour cost. The managerial interest are only there to serve the prosperous and the powerful; owners of capital while the employees are exploited. As in this situation, the conflict is endemic and management can only reduce the impact, they cannot use management techniques to settle it. The interactionalist view considers the conflict as a positive energy within the organisation that motivates to achieve the performance effectiveness. A few organisational theorist propose that management deliberately orchestrate within the organisation to help worktop extreme group cohesion which may lead to ‘groupthink’. This supports the fact that conflicts are foreseeable and it should be solved properly. However, conflicts that are managed properly may produce positive outcomes Conflict Handling Thomas and Kilmann (1976) suggested that two dimensional model of the resolution which is constructed on Blake and Mouton 1964 leadership grid model known as the ‘assertiveness and the cooperative model’ to help organisations deal with the conflict professionally without using a third party at resolution cost. The vertical axis represents the individual’s reaction to getting what they please whilst the horizontal axis of the model represents individual attempts to please the needs of others cooperativeness. It shows five resolution options, avoiding, accommodating, compromising, competing and collaborating. Fig 1: Adapted from “Conflict and Conflict Management” by Thomas, K. (1976) Psychology, Afzalur Rahim in 1983 reconstructed Thomas and Kilmann’s model with first dimension which explains the degree low and high which a person attempts to satisfy his or her own concerns when in fact the second dimension represents the degree low and high to which a person will attempt to conciliate the concern of others. Each dimension has its own advantages and disadvantages. Fig 2: Adapted from Rahim, A. M. (1983) A Measure of Styles of Handling Interpersonal Conflict. The options he represented in the model are; Avoiding ( low/low); This is when one of the parties connects with the conflict situation which extracts or even delays the conflict till a better time. It has a negative impact it the conflict gets out of control and there is a poor attempt at resolving the situation. However, it is a positive impact if the conflict is small and resolved quickly. It is even better when the negative of the relationship outweighs the conflict. Dominating (low/high); A ‘zero sum game’ is played in this situation, with one party winning and one loosing. It is good when a conflict is resolved quickly or when disliked but important decision has to be taken. Integrating (high /high); this is where all the groups work together to find another resolution to the conflict. This is high concern for self and for others. It works greater for complex issues and can result in long-term solutions. This takes longer to complete and can be unmanageable if one of the parties refuse to take part in the process. Obliging (high/low); this is when self-sacrifice comes in, in the form of generosity or even respect for other members’. This promote compromise between both parties but it can also lead to ‘temporary fixes’ if the situation is difficult. Compromising (middle). This involves an give-and-take or sharing approach where the members of the parties give up something to make a fair and acceptable decision.. However, this can lead to poor decisions that do not satisfy both sides of the parties. Thus, based on the above elements of conflicts, I have come to understand the major causes of conflicts in the work place. For example, having worked with several people from different backgrounds, I have come to note that most conflicts arise due to varied opinions with regard to culture, sources of motivation, competition, unclear job role, moral values, difference in personalities, increased task load and poor communication. Consequently, to improve the relationship between individuals in the workplace and limit conflicts, I advocated for opinion tolerance among colleagues. This was in order to enhance better understanding of other people’s viewpoint without gender, religious or racial bias. Eventually, this helped me develop good conflict management skills that are essential to my professional development and coordination in the workplace. Teamwork My choice of definition is borrowed from the Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary that describes teamwork as work done by several associates with each doing a part but all subordinating personal prominence to the efficiency of the whole (Merriam-Webster 2005). Teamwork is so broad a topic that cannot be exhausted without the application of several important organizational theories and models. Lencioni (2013) lists some as the Hierarchy of Needs theory by Abraham Maslow, Strength Theory and the team effectiveness model. For the purpose of my own professional preference, I will majorly use the team effectiveness model to deconstruct the idea of teamwork in an organization. Without doubt, the idea of uniting a group of people with different backgrounds to coordinate towards achieving a common objective has for long been my area of specialty. That is, if I am not at the helm of a particular task then I have to be part of the body that will accomplish it. The model begins with defining the key factors that affect a team’s design, processes and outcome with its Organization and Environment. Below is a summary: Reward systems – whereby members are partially appraised for participation; Communication systems – touches on the team’s communication strategy both internally and externally; Physical space – the co-area and format of physical space for the group; Organizational environment – that is, collection of resources, regulations, procedures, expectations and policies within the team; Organizational structure – how the team and the stakeholders relate; and Organizational leadership – the support the team expects to get from key leaders outside the team. Over the last three years, while working together with volunteers from my church on missionary activities in Africa, I have developed a broad understanding of the important role that stakeholders in an organization have towards ensuring team success and realization of set objectives, visions and missions. This is in line with the Organizational structure of the team effectiveness model. As per the organizational environment aspect of the model, I’ve spent a lot time in the past writing to different Charity Societies on the need for more funds in support of needy children and engaged my teams on the impact of inadequate funds on our working. Citing the need for Organizational leadership and proper Communication systems, I have in several occasions taken it as a personal task to coordinate with top most stakeholders in our missionary act to plan and outline the expectations of the team, timetables for community service and communication mechanisms, and ensured that the stakeholders if present, address the groups before the work is started. During particular occasions, our teams were not welcomed in some communities and at some point, one of the team members was arrested by a chief for trespassing and talking to residents without permission from local authorities. Despite explaining that we had an official document allowing us to explore different communities in Kenya he was not released until we bribed him out. Ethically, bribing is not right, but as a team leader I had to act fast and consequently learned that there was the need to only visit secure places. Check Physical space aspect of the model. Lastly, I implored the management to recognize and reward team members that had shown exemptional humanitarian act service. This is in line with the Reward systems column. Accordingly, teamwork theories and models are set to help organizations and individuals comprehend different aspects of organization behaviour as seen from my personal example above (Miner 2011). The next key area of the model is Team Design that encompasses the following elements: Task characteristics – classifying the team’s work in terms of degree of interdependence: sequential, reciprocal or pooled; Team size – the total number of people on the team; and Team composition – balancing between homogeneity (to unify) and diversity (to broaden possibilities). The size of the team and task characteristics are important towards the achievement of set objectives (Bowditch, Buono & Stewart 2007). As most of the people have worked would agree. I spent a great deal of time giving and classifying tasks to different members. Regarding the characteristics of task. I admit to having professional weakness. For instance, on several occasions I sought the use a defaulted approach whereby I assumed that the task needed proportional relationship, implying that it is profoundly intuitive and collective. This probably arose from the mere fact that I conducted huge amount of the task through community groupings. However, as Foster (2013) acknowledges, not all types of group work need to handle from one angle of approach. On the same note, my team composition has always encompassed 10 individuals. The third area of the model is Team Processes, it consists of: Team development – this is the “forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning” lifecycle of a team; Team norms – the rules and regulations that are laid to govern a team; Team roles – the functions and roles held by group members that allow the team to work; Team cohesiveness – the unity and motivation driven by feedback, interactions and functions; and Boundary management – touches on who is and is not part of the team, as well as other partners. In every team that I lead we set norms and agreed on acceptable behaviour for the members. Similarly, I articulated the lifespan of the mission to every team member and we agreed on the appropriate language to use the whole time. For example, “we’re storming!” or “we’re really performing!” The last area of the model is Team Effectiveness, it addresses the elements that define team success such as: Achieve organizational goals – objectives met by the team. Satisfy member needs – satisfaction of the needs of individuals in the team Team growth/learning – newly learnt experiences Maintain team survival – surviving outside challenges and threats Satisfy outside stakeholder needs – the team meeting expectations of stakeholders Judging by the elements of team organization highlighted in this model, I believe I have adequately excelled. Besides team members giving me positive reviews, local authorities where we conducted our missionary activities appreciated our work too. In conclusion, I fully agree with the structure of these models in deconstruction of the two aspects of behavioural organization (Team and Conflict). This is because the models address several aspects of conflict as well as team management in organizations that most of other theories tend to shy away from. From a professional and ethical point of view, these models have taught me two key things. First, there is the need to understand people from different culture and background in order to avoid conflicts. Secondly, decisions made in haste and from personal standpoint have a great impact on the outcome of a service even if one was on the right course. References http://shura.shu.ac.uk/2617/1/28_-_Mediation_-_Development_a_Theoretical_Framework_(BAM_Submission).pdf Bowditch, J.L., Buono, A.F. and Stewart, M.M., 2007. A primer on organizational behavior. Wiley. Merriam-Webster, INC. (2005). Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary. Springfield, Mass, Merriam-Webster, Inc. Miner, J. B. (2011). Organizational behavior 6. Armonk, N.Y., M.E. Sharpe. Lencioni, P. M. (2013). The five dysfunctions of a team: a leadership fable. San Francisco, Calif, Jossey-Bass. http://rbdigital.oneclickdigital.com. Galegher, J., Kraut, R.E. and Egido, C., 2014. Intellectual teamwork: Social and technological foundations of cooperative work. Psychology Press. Foster, P. A. (2013). Organization 3.0: the evolution of leadership & organizational theories toward an open system for the 21st century. Read More