Abstract
Conflicts are a part and parcel of our existence. It does not even require a second person to be in conflict with. We can have a conflict with our selves over goals, setbacks, aspirations etc. However, in organizations, a conflict can be energy sapping and un- productive, taking away a lot of valuable resolving time. Certain conflicts in a brain storming session can also be productive giving the debating members a lot of insight. Secondly, conflicts could be due to ones feelings or emotions, thoughts or perception and action or behavior. (Dane, 2001). Teams are the basic way in which organizations are run today. It is not possible to be in a team situation and not have conflicts. Productive conflicts will only add to organizational growth, whereas effective conflict management is also essential. Each member of the team has something of value to contribute (Heller, 1999)
Keywords: Conflict Management
Video Analysis
What are the issues in the meeting?
The central issue is community residents meeting for the first time for raising funds for a neighborhood playground. The meeting is held in an ambient atmosphere. Even though there are people with divergent views, the team members respect the opinions expressed and also their reservations. Hence, it is a very open meeting with active participation. It discusses funding options for the playground, the budget and finally means of raising funds.
What did they do well as a group?
Firstly, the group goes well out to make the new member, Betty comfortable. She has just moved in to the neighborhood and would like to meet and know people. At the same time, the group as a whole is well focused on the meeting agenda and at the same time have also worked on and researched on the topic so that precious time is not wasted. They have done well as a group in listening to each others suggestions of raising funds and even though there were reservations against some suggestions, they are not personalized and hence the meeting never loses its purpose and is held in a healthy and cordial manner. Diametrically opposite views which would have otherwise created friction points like, “aim for the maximum that you can get” versus “lets focus on the functionality and safeness” part are well handled by the group members themselves. Hence, the group is exposed to a lot of views and hence is in a strategic position to pick and choose the ones that it feels best fit. That is an ideal situation to be in a group discussion. One of the reasons that it goes well is also because they are meeting for the first time and have gone out of the way to accommodate each other. We can only try and guess how their reactions would be if they have been meeting often over the same issue. That would have brought out more individual character traits. The role of David in not letting them sway from the main agenda without being very visible is also one of the main salient features of this meeting.
Can you identify constructive or destructive conflict occurring in this group? What are the key indicators? What conflict styles do you see?
There are a lot of instances of constructive conflicts going on in this group. Firstly, the introduction of Betty who has come to get to know everyone versus the contention by David of “lets get on to the main agenda”. Second conflict point is on the issue of high versus low budget and what should be considered ideal? The third is Betty suggestion that a sale might help raise funds versus other members who feel that it might not be able to generate the quantum of funds required. The conflict style which is very apparently visible is the collaborative style with a lot of emphasis on working with each other.
Based on what you have learnt this week, how would you have handled the situation differently?
As is most apparent, the group is meeting for the first time, hence it starts with typical ‘get to know each other’ greetings. The meeting is held in a very conducive environment without ever losing track of the main agenda and this is thanks to the contributions by David. He is a proxy leader of sorts without being apparently visible yet guiding the group and helping it come to the understanding of the problems. There are no personality clashes and again we can contribute that to this being their first meeting. This is ideally the best fit for a meeting that was being conducted for a first time, the coming together of the participants and the multiple options that they debate on the table and hence I would not have handled this situation any differently.
Conclusion
The group is meeting for the first time. There are no previous personal biases that are coming in the way of effective group communication. The group is relaxed and the group leader does his job of steering the members well. It is a contributive discussion and all members have a say. The discussion is as per the objective and whenever the members sway away from it; they either rectify themselves, or just listen to wiser counsel. It is an ideal group discussion situation.
Video Analysis
The Politics of Sociology
What are the issues in the meeting?
The members of the Sociology Department of a local college are brainstorming about course offerings for the next semester. It is very obvious that all the participants have known each other for some time and are acutely aware of their inherent strengths and weaknesses. The meeting is not held in a conducive atmosphere and the leader has to intervene many a times to prevent the members from swaying away from the main agenda or rather personalizing.
What did they do well as a group?
They have not done very well as a group because the meeting agenda clearly wanted them to identify courses, add or eliminate courses and develop the depth of their curriculum for various courses. With that kind of a well defined agenda they have succeeded in identifying only one new course, not really deliberated on the pros and cons of that course but at the same time very vindictively tried to close a course of a fellow Professor, because lesser students had opted for it this time. They have also not explored how the,” Sociology of Time” course could either add on or contribute to the existing course or courses. As a group major part of the active discussion time is taken away by two members, one personalizing and the other fending away. Despite two interventions by the group leader the actual discussion on the new course has not really happened in greater detail wherein the course proposer has all the material ready. That should have been debated more. The merits of the course should have been deliberated upon. The same has not happened.
What type of conflict do you see in this video? Provide examples
There are two types of conflicts very much visible in the video. The first is, ‘competing’ type where the members are oblivious as to the central purpose of the brain storming but have become personalized and biased in their opinions of each other and the second type that is also apparent is the ‘assertive’ style where the focus is on individual needs, personal agenda and their desired outcomes. One member feels antagonized because of this and informs the two warring members and the team leader also intervenes a number of times, but the personal agenda just does not go away. The entire discussion revolves around three major pivots.
One Professor who is against the course on ‘Culture of Consumerism’ because of dwindling numbers.
The Professor who has designed the course and run it for twenty years trying to defend his course considering dwindling numbers to be only a transient phase.
The young Professor trying to promote, ‘Sociology of Time’ as a new course or a modification of some courses, that can prove to be the saving grace, but as the senior Professor remarked based on just one book.
There is a clear leader in this group. What can he do to be a better leader of this group?
The leader is definitely doing his part. He started off by establishing the grounds of the group discussion, intervened many a time when the discussion was not moving beyond a certain point, asked the group to think of ‘other ‘options and not the ‘only one’ contentious point. He went on to negate that option entirely so that the discussion would move forward. He has been calm and has a calming effect on the group including the warring members.
However he needs to be both calm and assertive. He is coming in to the discussion only when the erring members are deviating. The same behavior was repeated twice. At least the second time he should have been assertive. That would have resulted in a more productive discussion. Unfortunately, one member of the group even takes a serious objection to this behavior which otherwise should have been the leader’s responsibility.
Based on what you have learnt this week, how would you have handled the situation differently?
The Team Leader is calm and his interventions have always been understood and appreciated by the team. It was his responsibility to ensure a good group discussion. Unfortunately, when the group was veering away from the topic, especially two members, he should have been more assertive. If discipline would have been enforced then, the group would have got around to debating on the new course which would have been fruitful. The actual discussion based on the premises set has never taken place.
This is how I would have handled the situation differently.
Conclusion
The group members in this discussion have apparently known each other previously. There are lots of personal grudges and biases against each other that completely derail the discussion. When the objective of the discussion is to look for ideal courses that are financially viable and attract student’s attention, the entire discussion goes in to an attack and defend mode. Despite several interventions by the group leader and one of the group members, the discussion just does not come back on track. It is characterized by strong personality clashes and personal comments that were not warranted at all.
References
Dana D. (2001). Conflict Resolution. New York. McGraw Hill.
Heller R. (1999). Essential Managers. Managing Teams. Hong Kong. D. K. Publishers
