Introduction
As long as there is a firm relationship involved in a particular situation, conflicts are unavoidable. It means that both work and personal relationships encounter conflicts. Conflict refers to a situation in which “an individual or group feels negatively affected by another individual or group” (Borkowski, 2011, p. 285). Even though, all professional fields encounter conflicts, the health profession is a notch higher due to excessive regulations, scarce resources, high emotions and stress. However, conflicts have both negative and positive consequences (Borkowski, 2011). As such, it is important for leaders to analyze the nature of the conflict, and thus, choose the most suitable style of handling it.
The case of Who’s Boss presents the goal, cognitive, affective and procedural conflicts within the hospital. First, Dr. Jordan’s goal is to ensure that the quality of surgical procedures in the hospital. On the other hand, the nursing supervisor, Ms. Brady, aims at utilizing the operating time of the hospital in training the nurses. As a result, this compromised the quality of the surgical procedures in the hospital; hence, the goal conflict. Secondly, the fact that Ms. Brady was biased in assigning roles presented a cognitive conflict. To her, it was right to assign nurses who were greatly experienced in certain procedures; however, this was perceived to be favored by some of the surgeons. Thirdly, an effective conflict occurs between Mary and Harriet Briggs. On one side, Harriet is emotionally overwhelmed about the remarks, Dr. Jordan made to her pertaining her responsibilities as an administrator. However, Mary feels that Harriet’s answers are not appropriate in salvaging the situation; rather, she needs to establish a quick fix. Lastly, the procedural conflict exists on the firing of employees. Dr. Jordan feels that since he is the Chief of Surgery, he can fire whenever he feels appropriate. On the contrary, Harriet believes that since she is the administrator of the hospital, she is the only person that can fire an employee (Borkowski, 2011). This case presents an ideal scenario of analyzing the different types of conflicts.
In this case, the most appropriate problem-solving model has to be interactive model. Rather than reaching a binding agreement, the aim of this model is to improve communication, heightening understanding and reframing of priorities and goals. Mary will serve as a mediator between the conflicting parties, and thus, has to possess good negotiation skills. For instance, Mary would engage Dr. Jordan, Ms. Brady and Harriet in a negotiation. In these negotiations, she will encourage these parties to disclose what their goals are and what is barring them from achieving a common goal (Borkowski, 2011). Through this process, the parties will be solving the problem jointly, and they will develop mutual interest.
The case of Turf Battles describes a horizontal intergroup conflict. Here, the vascular surgeons at Holy Name Hospital are in a clash with the radiologist over the procedures to be conducted during angioplasty. During the time when the memo was being drafted, the radiologists employed a balloon in conducting this medical procedure. However, this was compromised to the training, skills and expertise of the vascular surgeons; hence, the confirmation through the memo (Borkowski, 2011). The conflict is between employees of different departments in their bid to pursue the team’s goals without considering those of the other group.
The most appropriate conflict-handling model when such a situation occurs is an integrative model. The vascular surgeons and radiologist will ultimately be in a win-win situation Bevans, their leader, uses this style of conflict-handling. In order for this style to be successful, Bevans has able to analyze the differences, encourage the exchange of information between the surgeons and radiologists and has to be open, as well. For instance, Bevans can engage the two groups in a discussion of their interest and goals. During the discussion, the leader should prompt the two opposing parties to think of what they suggest if they were on the other side (Borkowski, 2011). By so doing, the two groups will give options, and it is through these options that Bevans will make ground rules from and each group should adhere to the rules.
References
Borkowski, N. (2011). Organizational Behavior in Health Care. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and
Bartlett Publishers.
