Conflict Management in Business Organizations

Conflict Management in Business Organizations A conflict was recently observed in a retail toy operation that could have had a largely negative impact on the organization, but that instead resulted in positive change and development. A new employee joined the organization and despite a high degree of ability and the making of many positive contributions to the company, this employee also had a tendency to talk incessantly to the point that at least two other employees asked that their shifts be switched to avoid working with this person.

This would have created a major scheduling problem for the owner/manager, allowed the distracting and unprofessional behavior of the talker to continue, and would have also have set a very bad precedent in terms of allowing employees to determine their schedule based purely on interpersonal workplace politics.

Instead, at the next staff meeting the owner/manager brought up the topic of keeping chatter to a minimum when customers were in the store, due to the unprofessional nature of customers hearing details regarding employees' personal lives and/or conversations that might not be appropriate for the work setting. The conflict resolution method employed by the owner/manager in this situation is known as "smoothing" (OBIM 2010, P. 127).

This is generally a temporary method of resolution where a common ground between the partied in conflict is found and emphasized while differences are downplayed; though it is often successful in easing tensions it does not actually resolve the differences between the parties in conflict (OBIM 2010, P. 127). As this employee was hired just prior to the immensely busy Christmas season, however, a temporary fix that lasted for the next two months might have been exactly what the owner/manager was looking for.

Though meeting with the parties in conflict together (with all staff, actually) as recommended, the owner manager was really just one step away from avoidance (Heathfield 2010; OBIM 2010, p. 127). In true avoidance, the problem is simply ignored in the hopes that it will go away, and the owner/manager's actions could be interpreted as using this "technique" as the conflict itself was never addressed (OBIM 2010, p. 127). The owner/manager truly did avoid bringing the conflict into focus by discussing a "general" problem at the next meeting of all the staff.

A more effective technique might have been the creation of superordinate goals; though these are complex and sometimes difficult to develop, if the parties in conflict have a common goal that they must work together to achieve, peace is often achieved with it (OBIM 2010, p. 127). Setting new sales records or giving a bonus to the shifts in which conflicts were occurring for completing a certain amount of pricing or stocking could have perhaps resolved the conflict in this technique.

More simply, the owner/manager could have sat down with all three of the employees in conflict and reached a sort of compromise, where the talker would attempt to talk less and the others would try to show a little more compassion and patience. With both parties giving up something in terms of the effort put into this, a.