I worked in the army, specifically at Fort Drum, New York, as a specialist. The work place conflict that has been experienced involved misunderstanding between army personnel due to differences in points of views. A new policy was enforced indicating the need to fill up incident reports for work-related concerns that became a bottleneck or a problem. An incident report was prepared by a new recruit, Personnel A, who specifically noted that the problem stemmed from the inability of Personnel B to do his job well. The information contained in the incident report reached Personnel B who got angry and who blurted that he could have Personnel A dismissed or expelled. Personnel A confronted Personnel B which eventually resulted in a heated argument. The supervisor of Personnel B intervened and determined the root cause of the altercation. Apparently, there was an apparent lack of explanation and communication on the part of management to prepare the incident report form, especially to new employees. Likewise, from the report that was prepared, the lack of training of Personnel A on effective communication and avoiding blaming others, need to be enforced.
From the conflicts that ensue in the work setting, it was evident that management had to step in to resolve the conflict; if and when, the conflicting parties could not resolve the issues themselves. Likewise, it helps that the army has stipulated rules and regulations, as well as expectations on codes of discipline and conduct that govern protocols in assuming the appropriate stance and behavior in the work setting. As such, management could remind conflicting parties of system rules to assist in conflict resolution (Hocker & Wilmot, 2014). From the conflict experience, the supervisor who intervened re-oriented Personnel A on policies regarding the preparation of incident reports. On the part of Personnel B, the supervisor explained that he had to exercise control and discernment in identifying the