Workplace conflict resolution strategies and practices

Workplace Conflict Resolution

Work place conflict resolution

Management Role

In this case I will be assuming the role of direct supervisor for the operations department, which oversees the shipping and manufacturing functions at the organization. Each of the employees involved in the case study analyzed will report directly to me, and therefore I will be responsible for developing a solution to their problems and enforcing disciplinary action if necessary.

As a direct supervising manager and operations manager, I am personally accountable for any issues or loss of profits that might arise from shipping malfunctions, and therefore must resolve and find the source of the shipping problem because it could possibly cause the organization additional expenses.

Narrative Analysis

In this particular case, two individuals have initiated a heated debate which revolves around assigning responsibility for a shipping mistake that might cause the company lost production dollars. Neither employee at this point is willing to admit blame for the issue, and both are directly involved in the shipping process and could therefore be held responsible. As a manager, it is critical to evaluate each individual's behavior during a conflict situation. This is very often the first step toward successful workplace conflict resolution.

According to the Thomas Kilmann Conflict Mode instrument, conflict situations can be defined as "those in which the concerns of two people appear to be incompatible" (Bitman, 2002). In this particular case, the individuals in question are both concerned about looking out for what is in their best interests, and not the interests of the company as a whole. As a manager, it is my duty to look out not only for their interests but also the interests of the company. A successful manager must first assess to what extent each of the individuals is attempting to assert their concerns, and to what extent each member is willing to cooperate and satisfy each persons concerns, not just their own (Bitman, 2002).

There are many different personality styles that must be considered when attempting to manage this type of conflict. One is the competing personality, which is typically "assertive and uncooperative" (Bitman, 2002). In this situation the individual involved in conflict is much more likely to pursue their own interests regardless of anyone's personal expense that might be involved. This is also typically referred to as a "power-oriented mode" (Bitman, 2002), where a person exudes whatever "power" they feel appropriate in order to win over their position.

Both individuals involved in this particular conflict are assertive and uncooperative, unwilling to admit fault or seek out the true source of the problem to prevent it from happening again in the future. Very often the best method for revolving conflict in this situation is to handle any issues that arise with logic, and to be assertive in return, concise and prepared for anything. As a manager it is critical to remain calm and level headed.

There are also situations where two individuals are both assertive and uncooperative, and thus are labeled "Avoiding" (Bitman, 2002). In this situation the two people in conflict may not immediately pursue their own concerns or those of any one else, but rather attempt to avoid the conflict all together. This may happen via way of "diplomatically sidestepping an issue" or postponing an issue until hopefully it disappears (Bitman, 2002). Many times this happens because the individuals involved hope that the issue will merely go away, however this seldom results in a solution to issues. This also seems to be a problem in this case; if my administrative assistant had not pointed out the initial problem, it is likely that the two individuals involved would have attempted to avoid the issue all together to escape blame and repercussions.

The best method for resolving workplace conflict in this particular case involves initiating collaboration and compromise between the two employees involved. By requiring the participants in a heated debate to collaborate, the individuals involved must try to work with the other person they are involved with, to find a solution that will satisfy the concerns and needs of both employees (Bitman, 2002).

In order for collaboration to be effective, the individuals in question must really take time to assess the concerns of one another and attempt to resolve the conflict at hand. Collaboration often involves finding creative solutions to problems.

Compromise is similar; however each party would be required to give a little in order for compromise to be effective. Achieving a mutual negotiated outcome is the goal of such negotiating. Compromise means that both parties will have to exchange concessions or seek a common ground (Bitman, 2002). In this particular case as a manager I will suggest first that since neither employee is willing to admit blame, both should take equal responsibility for the error. If each member is willing to acknowledge that their job involves responsibility for the shipping department as a whole and not just their own work, hopefully they will learn to work together as a team and not as individuals. In this case instituting a system of checks and balances where each of the two employees can audit the others work to ensure accuracy and lack of errors, problems in the future might be prevented.

Some additional tips for workplace resolution that may be helpful in this particular situation include teaching each of these employees the importance of valuing the diversity of team members. Both of the individuals involved in the conflict regarding the shipping issue come from different backgrounds and cultures, and each has different working styles. Helping them understand these differences and accept them might help prevent further conflict from developing and help the employees reach a mutual understanding regarding work ethic.