Managing Difficult Conversation - Essay Example

Managing Difficult Conversation For the problem between Betty and Andy to be solved, it will require a considerable degree of negotiation since they both feel very strongly about each other’s actions and tendencies. However, the fact that the manager has demanded they both report to his office means they have no choice but face their disagreement as objectively as possible. According to (Stone, Bruce and Sheila, 2010) who have co-written the book “managing difficult conversations” when a situation emerges where two individuals are having trouble relating with each other, it is often a result of communication problems. Interactions are based on the willingness of both parties to understand or at least tolerate each other’s points of view. However, in some cases people assume the worst about each other or simply make conclusions based on emotions rather than evidence (Sirkin, Perry and Alan, 2005). One of the challenges Betty and Andy are having in the case study is that they are both ignorant of the real motivation for the other’s action. This means they need to change their way of approaching the problem or risk operating from a position of ignorance. To effectively solve the problem and create mutual understanding, between them, they need to create a rapport, which can only happen if they share their concerns in open negotiation. Negotiation will in most cases synchronize the feelings of the negotiating parties creating a feeling of having common objectives, which will ultimately make dispute resolution easier. In the case of Andy and Betty, objective negotiation will most likely bring about a common understanding since given their different explanation, the have a lot in common and are both hardworking and ethical employees. I (Andy) was initially reluctant to hold a discussion with Betty, in my opinion she was both snobbish and irresponsible. In addition I was still holding on to the opinion that she and the boss were very close so even if we went in to discuss the issues I would be victimized and she would likely get away with everything. However when we went to the office, things happened quite differently, I was told to give my side of the story which I did but as soon as I started talking I realized that I could only explain the things she did not do not what she had actually done. I then listened to her side of the story and I frankly felt a bit foolish and mean for not having thought about it from her perspective. I still felt she should have been more forthcoming about her hours and projects since although her private life is her business, when it affected the work schedule it became our business. The manager confirmed to me that Betty did not have any work related issues and despite her irregular hours, she actually worked longer and on more projects than anyone else myself included did. I decided to be reconciliatory and admitted that I had been too quick to pass judgment on Betty although I did not know very well what she went through and how she performed her duties. In the simulation, both parties get into the manager’s office and he tells them what he heard about their actions and expresses his disappointment that such mature leaders in the Organisation could set such a poor example. He then goes ahead to remind them that they were both qualified to hold managerial positions and such actions were unbecoming of future managers in this or any other organization. They listen with rapt attention although both appeared unwilling to look him or each other in the eye. He then refers to the written statements each had submitted and asks them to give their side of the story starting with Andy. When he reached the point where he describes Betty’s propensity for lateness, she tries to interrupt him but the managers waves her into silence. He then tells her that she will have her chance to defend herself and she should not cut short the other speaker. After Andy is done, she it then allowed to speak, she explains everything from her point of view and even provides the name of the employee she was helping when she was allegedly late and describes the project which both men admit was long overdue. Both of us apologized to each other for our assumptions and I admitted to having looked at the matter from a one sided point of view. To a significant extent, I would say the meeting was not a disappointment since I have hoped we would establish a middle ground. It gave us a chance to listen to each other in the presence of a mediator, which proved very useful since on pervious occasions, we had failed to reach an agreement because of poor and incomplete communication. One of the key drivers for successful negotiation is the face-to-face communication, which forces both parties to acknowledge and to some extent humanize each other. One of the practices that has been found very useful in negotiation and which worked in our case was reframing. This is where the two conflicting parties move away from the primary argument on which they are disputing and consider a matter of mutual importance to both of them. Betty and I could not agree on whether or not she was acting in a justified manner, however we agreed in that each of us wanted to do the best work possible for the organisational. By redirecting out energy on what we had in common, it was much easier for us to focus on the differences more objectively. Betty realized for instance that I was not just unhappy because I thought she had more free time but because I felt it would affect negatively on the company. From this point on it was much easier to listen to each other instead of each waiting for the other to finish talking so they can attack their arguments, as is often the case in arguments. Negotiating with someone with whom one has already created a rapport therefore makes it in my experience much more likely for a compromise to be arrived at. Conflicts Value in Organizations Louis Pondy, in his 1967 model describes a conflict model that describes conflict in the organisational setting as an aberration of the standard or the normal way in which systems were supposed to function. However, he admits that due to the inherent differences in human character and perspective, conflict is inevitable in any environment where different people have to corporate (Pondy 1989). His proposed solution was that the best way to deal with conflict would be to streamline the organisational design in such a way that conflict is avoided as much as possible. In addition, he proposed the trading of members that generally share goals and objectives. He also proposed a rather unusual position in which he posited that conflict could be avoided through decoupling of conflicting parties, this way people in the organisations who tended to constantly conflict could be separated from each other. While these solutions appear quite sound and logical to boot, it is worth noting he admits in his theory that conflict is not necessarily bad since it can motivate creativity and innovation among employees as different people attempt to prove and support their points of view (Pondy 1967). Weiss and Hudges appear to share a similar view with Condy, they explore the various challenges executive go through trying to make their employees work in harmony and admit that it is more complex than it would appear(Weiss and Jonathan, 2005). Despite efforts to motivate and reward collaborative teamwork and other techniques of fostering increased communication and reduced conflict, they claim that conflict is rarely “treated”. However, like the previous theories, Hughes and Weiss also consider conflict very important in organizational relationships (Alper, Dean and Kenneth, 2000). According to them, trying to create collaboration by eliminating conflict is not practical since it is through conceit that collaboration is crafted. They agree that despite the tendency of conflict to be destructive, the impact it has on bringing out the best of employees by challenging them individually and collectible cannot be overstated. However this said, conflict is not always good since sometimes it is inspired by personal and non-work related issues which must be handled independently from day to day work. Generally, two categorization can be made in organisational conflict management. One is managing conflict at the point where it occurs or managing it from and organisational perspective after it has escalate to managerial levels. Oetsel and Ting Toomey (2012. 365) on the other hand propose three levels; latent, which is similar to unexpressed of passive conflict, formal disputes where the conflict is being openly addressed and litigation. The final category is normally however only an option when the conflict has proven impossible to manage through regular channels or when the aggrieved feels management is either the source of the problem or they are not likely to treat their complains fairly. When there is a good structure for dealing with conflict, several advantages can be gleaned, for one; management will not have to try to navigate around or even ignore obvious signs of poor relations between members of staff. This usually leaves the task of conflict management to the disputing parties that may not have the training to handle the situation. As a result, they will either end up trying to justify their actions start a blame trading dispute with each truing to heap the bulk or all responsibility on the other. They will keep haggling about who is wrong and who is right; they will focus on small and often meaningless concessions for ego’s rather than business sake. Consequently, the companies that do not have effective tools in place for handling disputes will lose the chance to harness inter team or department conflict into “energy” for the organization. These readings and others outside the course unit have provided succinct proof that many scholars believe conflict management is more than the elimination of conflict; it is about identification of the elements of the HR mix that are not working in harmony and trying to capitalize on the positives. Drawing from the thoughts of the above individual, it is apparent that for a management professional to reasonably expect to be successful, the must understand how to communicate with staff in conflict situations. It requires considerable skill for any manager to navigate their organisations across the inevitable sea of conflict that characterizes majority firms. It calls for serious design making for instance when one has to choose between solving of eliminating a conflict situation when they feel it could have a positive impact on the organization. In its early day, Google. Inc. had a management system that encouraged employees to be very expressive about the products and services they were making. The firm allowed and even encouraged employees to get involved in numerous arguments, which was seen as a way of encouraging them to more productive and innovative. However, after some years, they adopted a new model in which aggressive battles are core but they are not as extreme as they used to be in the past. As a leader, one must factor in the effect their method of dealing with conflict based on the situation in hand and the projected outcomes. They should make contingencies and provide their staff with training on how to channel and manage their conflict without negatively affecting the organisations. As a manager, to be, I find this value on the lessons about conflict management cannot be overstated since as aforementioned, it is invariably a part or each organisations. From this, I have learnt that without conflict in an organization, employers and employees are bound to remain static, which is a very dangerous position to hold in the quickly globalizing world. In the end conflict must be examine from both its positive and negative side, this way, the manager will know how to apply communication skills to develop a mechanism that allows him or her to contain the conflict. In conclusion, I believe that to be an effective manager, which is my key career objective, I must work towards improving my skills in managing conflict and when necessary harnessing its potential for creativity and innovation. Intractability, Ideology and Public Participation in Public Disputes Much of the research on the intractability ideology and public participation in conflict resolution has explored the various issues that underlie conflict management, from my perspective; I believe there is sufficient albeit not comprehensive literature on the matter (Wade-Benzoni et al, 2002). The main reason why it is so difficult of organisations to manage conflict effectively is therefore not absence of evidence but poor implementation. Forester (2006) argues that the issue not lack of information but rather poor implementation. His argument appears to contradict the previous assertion that conflict is good for generating creativity. It is worth noting that in his case, he addresses it in the context of public participation in the process of conflict resolution. He proposes that when conflict is brought to the limelight it tends to generate more heat than light, which metaphorically implies that the public will only bring about emotional reactions and not necessarily practical solutions to a conflict situation. However, this should not be taken to mean that all is lost, on the contrary, planners organizers and managers need to develop their personal skills to integrate them with the preexisting theories and ideologies on the subject. Some of the possible means by which conflict can be solved in the public forum include negotiation and mediation. Depending on the skillfulness of the mediator or negotiator, they can solve the problem by applying relevant theories and ideology to the conflict situation. Intractability is one of the controversial concepts in conflict management, according to some, intractability conflicts are impossible to solve or are too complex to bear paying attention to. Contrary to popular assumption, intractability is by no means a dichotomous concept based on two radically divergent continuums (Burgess and Guy, 2003). On the contrary, it is itself a continuum with complex intractable conflicts on one side and the simple ones on the other, the middle ground is where most conflicts can be found (Burgess and Guy, 2006). Once again, using theoretical literature, it is evident that only through comprehensive understanding of the various theories explored in the literature can organisational conflict be successfully negotiated and mediated. In an organisational or social setting, intractability is often characterized by conflicts between what people perceive to be right and wrong and in many cases; such conflicts cannot be resolved through negotiation since each group holds a position whose legitimacy is mutually exclusive to the other. For example in the pro-life pro-choice debate, the former group will not concede to any position that supports “murder”. In such a scenario, it becomes nearly impossible for people to negotiate with each other. However, other conflicts are not irreconcilable but can be very difficult to negotiate (Burgess and Guy, 2003). For organisations, these may include high-stake issues of distribution over who gets what especially when dealing with highly valuable resources. Internally, these can involve things like promotions and salary increases while externally they may be engendered in conflict between the organization and society. For example, the local community on the basis that it is polluting the environment may oppose the actions of an organization (Forrester 446). Other areas of intractability can be considered in situations where there conflict over dominance and superiority; these are normally referred to as power or status conflicts. However, one must also consider that the fact that a single or multiple elements described exists does not always guarantee that an intractability conflict is in the offing, it nevertheless makes it likely that there could be an intractable end of the continuum (Lederach and Michelle). While there is no sure way of handling intractability, some of the methods proposed in the reviewed literature can be very useful in in either resolving conflict or helping bringing about a compromise. Negotiation and mediation are some of the most effective ways that can be used to approach conflict between parties whether within or without organisations. Forrester describes as situation where members of an organization working with the public may face conflict because of some of their “clients” thinking that they are partial to one side (Forrester 447). Nevertheless, it is important to consider that although intractable conflict may not be resolved, through mediation, it allows the people on both sides to listen to each other’s argument and respect the opposite perspective (Subramanian and Flom 1). For example, pro-life and Pro-Choice people may not agree on each other’s points of view, but sitting on the negotiation table is an opportunity for them to express their feelings to each other. At the end of it, they will recognized their opponents as intelligent and that they are making logical arguments even if they do not agree with them. In addition, when people are involved in conflicts about political ideology, they get a chance to hear what the people on the other side think and it allows them to recognize each other in a positive way, consequently, they can make their conflicts and disagreements a source harmony and possibly even good will. No matter how conflicted two groups may be, there is always a possibility that they share a mutual ground, which is recognized in negotiation. For example, people may have disagreement on some ethical issues but they will nevertheless wish to avoid violent confrontation. As a result, despite the intractable nature of the conflict in question, mediation can be used to bring people to a middle ground irrespective of how divergent their take on conflicting issues is. For example, few would have imagined that the Berlin wall could have fallen or that Nelson Mandela could serve as president with De Clerk as his deputy despite the fact that the latter had been incarcerated for years by the white supremacist apartheid government. In the end, intractable conflicts are not tractable because they are fixed in that state but because people tend to be unwilling to meet each other halfway. As long as two conflicting partied have the humility and readiness to acknowledge that the other side may have a legitimate argument even if they are unwilling to share its perfective conflicts are bound to escalate with time. Therefore, the most logical option for organisations and society to always create as much room as possible for dialogue and negotiation. References Alper, S., Dean, T. and Kenneth, S. (2000). Law. "Conflict management, efficacy, and performance in organizational teams." Personnel Psychology 53.3: 625-642. Burgess, H. and Guy, B. (2003). "What are intractable conflicts." Beyond Intractability. Retrieved from http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/meaning-intractability  Burgess, H. and Guy, B. (2006) "Intractability and the frontier of the field."Conflict Resolution Quarterly 24.2: 177-186. Forester, J. (2006). "Making participation work when interests conflict: Moving from facilitating dialogue and moderating debate to mediating negotiations." Journal of the American Planning Association 72.4: 447-456.-320. Lederach, J.P. and Michelle, M. (2003). "Conflict transformation." Beyond Intractability. Retrieved from http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/transformation Pondy, L.R. (1967). "Organizational conflict: Concepts and models." Administrative science quarterly : 296 Pondy, L.R. (1989). "Reflections on organizational conflict." Journal of Organizational Change Management 2.2: 94-98. Sirkin, H.L., Perry, K., and Alan, J. (2005). "The hard side of change management." Harvard business review 83.10: 108. Stone, D., Bruce, P.and Sheila, H. (2010). Difficult conversations: How to discuss what matters most. London: Penguin. Subramanian, G. and Flom, J. The New Conflict Management Effective Conflict Resolution Strategies to Avoid Litigation. Program on Negotiation. Harvard Law School. Wade-Benzoni, K. A., et al. (2002). "Barriers to resolution in ideologically based negotiations: The role of values and institutions." Academy of Management Review 27.1: 41-57. Weiss, J., and Jonathan, H. (2005). "Want collaboration." harvard business review 83.3: 93-101. Read More