Conflict, Its Nature and Sources

Conflict Resolution

(c) Based on what you learned in T205A concept file 02, and T551 Linear Programming:

what is meant by conflict, its nature and sources?

Conflict in psychological development theory offered by Erik Erikson is a dichotomy. It can act both as a means of moving ahead towards growth and development or on the other hand lead to a dead stop. A situation that one finds oneself in causes internal emotions that are in direct opposition to each other (Cherry). A conflict can hence result in decisions that are least anticipated, even by the individual afflicted by it. Individuals working in organizations, specially, face conflicting situations regularly even though they may not realize it. The participants in the ADEA Leadership Workshop sought out the sources of conflicts. In organizational behavior, it was evident that the younger generation was not disposed to aligning with the values professed by the senior colleagues, often taking up senior administrative positions higher up in the hierarchy (Hoelscher and Comer, 2002). The loyalty for the organization is thus found wanting. The second issue raising conflict is the respect for tradition. While the older generation prefers to adhere to experience and conventionally held values and knowledge banks, the younger generation seeks new knowledge and resents tradition clinging attitude of the seniors. This conflict is most evident in the classroom where the student seeks new knowledge against the rigidity of traditionally held postures by the faculty. This cause leads to the next, ease of adaptation to new technology- the later generation can adapt to new devices, technological advances and ideas more readily than their peers (Hoelscher and Comer, 2002). The ideological stance taken by the seniors forms the fourth point of conflict as it is not wholly understood and hence not accepted by the youngsters. The younger members may be apprehensive of losing their direction and hence bearings in owing allegiance to ideological values espoused by seniors in the organizational and institutional constructs. It may not matter to them (youngsters) that the positioning is morally valid and ethically correct. The conflict of personalities is the most difficult to solve in an organization or institution. For example, the management may find it difficult to award incentives and gestures to employees of faculty members. Each person thinks differently and an award may seem to be inadequate to some awardees while the management may be aiming for equality in treatment within the limitations of organizational justice.

2- In the case at hand this is what has been presented:

Dr. Sandy Forester finds herself in a conflict situation. She is presently a faculty and directs the AEGD program in the Midwestern Dental School. It may be mentioned here that she took her degree in dental science and AEGD certificate from this very institution. At the time of appointment, she confided in the chair (a certain Dr. Steve Williams) of Department of Restorative Dentistry of her inclination to clinical dentistry, career wise and that she felt fit to start a family shortly. She was offered two career track options available at that time in the institution-clinical or tenure track (Hoelscher and Comer, 2002). Dr. Forrester opted for the former, reasoning that, it would then be easier to balance the two lives she was to embark upon- career and social (starting a family). According to Dean Carol Markin, there were many (those leaving it) who thought that the tenure track plan was not well thought out. This puts Dr. Forrester in a quandary, as one would generally seek a path that had direction and would lead to known, often desired outcomes. Eventually such a situation does arrive in Dr. Forrester's career where she seems to be in a seriously conflicting situation. The department head has changed in the meantime (now it is Dr. Marino). So have some rules of the Institution that trace out the path for career promotions, according to which Dr. Forrester qualifies for the posting of Clinical Associate Professor. The efforts taken in her research work do not account for much in the new scheme of things, as her primary area of operation and duties was the clinical track (Hoelscher and Comer, 2002).

Dr. Forester, as a consequence, now has to change departments and to carry forward her research points the needs to put in the extra effort in addition to the new responsibilities that she now has to take up. Dr. Forrester realizes that she may either have to work overtime each day or work on the weekends to keep her career aspirations afloat. Which in turn, meant compromising on the personal and family life (her primary concern) (Hoelscher and Comer, 2002).

Dr. Forester is unable to cope with the way the events unfolded, and also the way they were communicated to her. She could not understand how it was possible to pursue her career ambitions and passions while taking care of her two children responsibly. The very situation she had strived to avoid has presented itself before her. She has now been relegated to the clinical track in spite of doing more than what was expected of her in her assigned duties. In spite of having a passion for her job, the thought of leaving it (and, by implication, the Institution) crosses her mind, something she has never envisaged doing (or something she could never fathom).

3- Causal thinking for solving problems proceeds in three steps:

The first step of this approach is to observe and identify the problem in the situation that needs to be resolved. Then one identifies the cause of the problem that the situation carries. This step involves looking at all factors or effects that might have led to the undesired outcomes. It is only after due consideration that the real cause is identified as removal of the cause would normalize the situation, bereft of problems according to this method of conflict resolution. (Collani, 2010). Causal thinking is thus based on the cause-effect relationship. Binder calls this methodology as the "thinking in points" approach.

In the approach of applying Logical Thinking to resolve conflict situations, the basic focus is on working around ascertainable facts. Such an approach has gained in importance over the last few centuries and has been a vital implement to the technological advances we see today (Tschiesche, 2012). The limitation (of Logical Thinking) lies in its emphasis on restricting ourselves to the conscious part of the brain. It now becomes important to digress and learn what process reductionists entail. Reduction is the thinking process where one theory is thought of to emanate, in some way from some other basic theory. That needs a bit of explanation. As an example, consider the case where mathematicians relate any other theory or percept in mathematics to the set theory, or at least present them in the syntax followed in set theory. A student of biology, applying reductionism may link the study of cells to molecular percepts or put simply to molecules and atoms (the basic building blocks of all matter). The latest addition to this thought process of reductionism is relating all psychological and metaphysical phenomenon to laws and principles of physics. This implies that all sciences can be explained through our understanding of physics (Ney). Since the onset of the twentieth century, the concept of unification of all sciences gained strength. Researchers, thinkers, and students alike started relating to all previously known theologies through the view of reductionism. We should however understand that there are different approaches through which any theory is correlated with some other known (often physics) theory.

In the case of Dr. Forrester, we can ascertain the facts that led to the situation she finds herself in through consultation with her and her peers or the administration. Hence, logical Thinking approach is applicable in this case. We have to involve Casual Thinking approach for resolution, too, as this is also a case of cause- effect relationship. The cause(s) leading to the present circumstances have to be ascertained. It is evident that Dr. Forrester feels being victimized by the situation. The other factor is that, now the peers and Dr. Forrester have opposing evaluation of her performance.

4- The different types of contracts which govern the relationship between employers and their employees

The Psychological Contract is an understanding of sorts (mental, emotional, sentimental or psychological) between two individuals, or for that matter, between an administrator and the employee(s). It encompasses important relationship dimensions of faith and trust (Shruthi and Hemanth, 2012). It is hence an unwritten binding force in the organizational construct. The inputs and results expectations from each other in the contract are defined (even if intangibly). Such faith and trust exists between Dr. Forrester and her former peer, Dr. Williams. In addition to the formal obligations laid out in the employment clauses, Dr., Forrester feels obligated to perform outside her official duties (in pursuit of advancing her career objectives) and does so, encouraged by the sanction availed from an understanding Head of department (Dr. Williams).

The "at-will" employee and employer contract empowers the employer to terminate the services of the employee without furnishing sufficient and logical reason. Formal contracts do not allow for such behavior or disposition. Formal contracts clearly state the relationship status between the employed and the employer. In the United States, the "at will" clause is still applicable in many states and each state uses it according to their situation or precedence. For example in some states the employees will enjoy more protection than in others, through exceptions incorporated in the "at will" contract (What Is An At-Will). In such states, the judiciary takes into account the history of the employment tenure to ascertain the relationship and issues leading to the situation to decide the merits of the case. This follows the basic presumption that in the first place there was no formal agreement regarding the expectations from the employee (or conversely the employer). Even though the employment was "at-will," in such states that provide for employee protection, the Courts apply the formal contracts to see if the termination, demotion, or penalty imposed on the employee was justifiable. In as much, it is then the "Implied Contract" revoked when an "at-will" employee is discharged or demoted. The implied contracts comprise of statement and opinions of company managers and supervisors, employers written policies, treatment meted to similar employees (What Is An At-Will).

The fundamental concept is that employers cannot violate any state policy regarding employment and termination. They cannot discriminate against any employee (What Is An At-Will). The employer still has a free hand to terminate employee(s) who act in contravention to the organization's policies or even for economic reasons. The Institution Dr. Forrester serves in could terminate her citing her inadequate research points (though ironic, but factual according to the amended rules that do not allow dual entries), and her inclination for chosen clinical pursuits). In face of the offer made to her that are in contradiction to her career progress and the familial obligations Dr. Forrester is contemplating resignation from the job.

5- The sources of the conflict

In this case, neither the dean, Dr. Markin, nor the department chairperson, Dr. Marino, are unaware of the problem, the conflict. Going by the rulebooks, they infer that Dr. Forrester has not performed according to levels that may be termed as acceptable. The initiative to resolve the 'conflict' is hence missing. We can spot the 'Ideological' inconsistencies amongst the members involved. While according to Dr. Forrester, she had performed exceedingly well given her conditions, Dr. Williams opinion was that hers was an 'acceptable' performance (Hoelscher and Comer, 2002). In Dr. Marino's appraisal of Dr., Forrester's work, the work was graded as 'unacceptable'. That appraisal was in contradiction to the excellent points Dr. Forrester had scored in her research and teaching assignments.

Dr. Forrester wasn't communicated about the shift in administration (personnel as well as rules) that needed her to realign her priorities and score in alternative areas that would help her career objectives. She, hence obviously feels victimized. The net result is that she is now unsure of her bearings. As peer, the Dean (Markin) should have anticipated that the changes in rules combined with the personnel change in the administration could cause conflicts (Hoelscher and Comer, 2002). The Dean should have taken the initiative to persuade Dr. Marino to be sympathetic to the position of the staff and engaged in a dialogue to explain the position taken by the management and help smooth transition to the new rules. That would have helped avoid conflicts and, at the same time won the cooperation of the subordinates. The specific problem of Dr. Forrester was intrapersonal, where her career ambitions clashed with the concerns of her family. It is thought that few more evaluation and assessment allowing Dr. Forrester to prove her credentials and dedication of her work for the Institution would have resolved the difficult situation. Similarly, Dr. Forrester should have taken up her case in a more acceptable form to Dr. Marino and explained her inclinations, priorities, the work she had put in (following consent of his predecessor, Dr. Williams). There was a total lack of communication and hence clarity in this case. Through systematic approach the root cause of the conflict are now identified as feelings of victimization and unacceptable performance (Hoelscher and Comer, 2002).