The purpose of the paper is to answer the questions of the case study after having the analysis of the case study “Midwestern: Contemporary Art”. The case consists of two parts Part (A) and Part (B). Part (A) contains five questions and part B contains three questions. The paper answers all eight questions in sequential manners.
Part A
Conflicts are the part of the workplace and common in multiple organizations. There are two major types of conflicts include cognitive/task-related conflicts and affective/person-oriented conflicts. Cognitive/task-related conflicts deal with the differences in thoughts, ideas, and opinions. However, affective/person-oriented conflicts include the sense of individual incompatibility that is characterized by frustration and tension (Saksvik, 2009). The case analysis revealed that the type of conflict that was existing between Peter Smith and Kelth Schmidt was Cognitive/task-related conflict, as both the conflict was interpersonal that was occurring due to differences in thoughts and opinions. They both have different personalities; Peter was not a risk taker as Kelth Schmith that created incompatibilities between their choices and opinions on business expansion. Peter wanted to expand the business slowly with backup planes he was a conservative and risk averse; however, Kelth Schmith belief was on aggressive expansion and risk taking for the attainment of his goals. Kelth Schmith did not like the behavior of Peter Smith and did not want to be controlled. The interference of Peter Smith was communicating the sense to Kelth Schmith that he was not being trusted, and his capabilities of leading the organizations were being questioned that created conflicting situation.
Role ambiguity refers to the situation when people are not clear about their duties and expectations within a particular role. The reason behind the role ambiguity is the vague description of duties; the concept the closely associated role conflict. For resolving the role ambiguity, it is crucial for organizational members that they have information about the expectations of their roles (Rahim, 2010). The case of Peter Smith and Kelth Schmith clearly communicates that limitations and duties of the roles were not defined clearly to them that resulted in conflict. Role ambiguity can result in several other conflicts within an organization. Therefore, for the reduction of such conflicts, it is essential that clear job description is provided to all organizational members. The responsibilities, expectations, and limitations associated with each role are defined clearly (Chaturvedi, 2013). Communication is another best solution that contributes in resolving conflicts immensely. Hence, it is pivotal that collaborative strategy is established through which decisions are made by having communication with each other that will help them in resolving conflicts by coming up to mutually agreed decision. They should have designed structural meetings for having the clearly of expectations and responsibilities. Communication and role clarity together could strengthen the relationship between Peter and Kelth and organization could save itself from the loss of losing a talent.
When the conflicting situation was presented in front of other board members, they decided to vote on whether they wanted to support the decision of Peter or Kelth. The voting disclosed that majority of the board was in the favor of the strategy of Kelth Schmith of expanding aggressively. In result of this decision, Peter Smith disappeared from the “Chicago art community”. Even after several phone calls, he did not reply any call. This reaction of Peter Smith was not justified; he should not have been so irresponsible and unprofessional. Disagreement does not mean that people should leave the organization. After having disagreement from his opinion Peter Smith should not have cut off his communication with MAC. Peter Smith should have shown some flexibility; he should have tried to understand Schmith. He should have rethought the situation and should have revisited the finances and started cooperating with Schmith, as his decision was supported by the majority. Peter could adapt the strategy of negotiation, but he adapted the strategy of quitting and broke his communication with MAC, which was not a wise act, rather was a childish and unprofessional behavior.
Slight differences between the role of board executive directors and board chairman exist in organizations such as MAC, as both of these personnel deal with the common line of resources. The chairman of the board is liable to control the discussion in the meeting of the board. The person is liable to keep the meetings at the governance level and keep all the meetings and discussions in the line of set organizational goals. He is liable to make sure that board actions are in compliance with the laws. If he finds any discrepancy between the laws and action taken by the board, it is the responsibility of board chairman to inform board members and correct them.
However, the responsibility of an executive director is to assist Chairman in preparing the meetings’ agenda. He is liable to work collaboratively with the chairman for the attainment of the mission of the business and for the preparation of the resolutions of conflicts that can occur during the meeting (Carlson & Donohoe, 2010).
Part B
MAC is a nonprofit organization and failure in pledge can lead such organizations towards immense issues. Hence it is pivotal to fulfill the pledge. The new chairperson of MAC Peggy Fischer realized that the new museum facility cannot be continued without the fulfillment of the pledge made by Peter Smith and his wife. For the fulfillment of the pledge, she decided to file the law suit against Peter Smith. However, many of the members of the board gave their opinions against this decision as they believed that this suit would damage the image of the organization and other donors might not trust them or think twice to make a pledge. Moreover, it was found that Peter Smith was suffering from cancer and his wife due to this situation was not in good position. It would be unethical to file a law suit against Peter in this hard time of them. However, for the continuation of the new facility (museum) in the United States, the fulfillment of the pledge is pivotal. The alternative approaches that can be considered by the fishers that she can convince Peter to fulfill the pledge. If Fischer failed in convincing Peter then it could file a case a could explain the court that Peter pledge accounted for the plan of building a new museum so the court may force him to make payment of money.
Fischer must involve the board members in further discussion and should convince them on her decision. A good chairperson is the one who maintain trust and take members of the board into confidence. The consequences of making recommendations by not considering anyone can be negative; the conflicting situation can be the consequence of not communicating the next step to board members. Board members may perceive that they are being neglected or excluded in the process of making the critical decision to the organization that can create grudges. Fischer should communicate with board members that what is going to be the next step for her and should convince them on the importance of the decision. The openness strategy will help Fischer in getting the support of board members and avoid conflicts (Carlson & Donohoe, 2010).
In my opinion, Fischer should not file a law suit against Peter Smith. The first reason is that Peter Smith devoted a significant amount of time for the organization, and his decisions contributed significantly to organizational progress. Filing suit against such organization’s member without having any communication with him will be unjustifiable and unethical. The second reason is that Smith is going through a very tough time of his life, he is suffering from cancer. It will be unethical to take such a harsh step against him when he is not even in the position of walking. The last and very important reason for not filing the suit is that if the organization does so, then other donors may perceive the organization as negative and may think twice before making a donation. Due to the fear that in the case of failing to fulfill a pledge the organization can sue him can reduce the number of donors significantly that can hurt the organization in the long run. Hence, it is recommended that Fischer should not file the law suit against Peter Smith.
Conclusion:
The paper attempted to answer all of the questions presented at the end of the case Midwestern: Contemporary Art. The case considers the conflicts, ethics, communication, and leaderships situations that personnel has to face in non-profit organizations. The case contributed to learning and helped in clearing diverse concepts.
References
Bergemann, R. (2013). An Asperger Leader's Guide to Living and Leading Change. UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers
Carlson, M., & Donohoe, M. (2010). The Executive Director's Guide to Thriving as a Nonprofit Leader. USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Chaturvedi, R. (2013). Managing Organizations (For GBTU). Vikas Publishing House
Rahim, M. A. (2010). Managing Conflict in Organizations. USA: Transaction Publishers.
Saksvik, P.O. (2009). Prerequisites for Healthy Organizational Change. Bentham Science Publishers
