Good Example Of Essay On Conflict of Responsibility and the Constructive Conflict

Terry Cooper and Follett Parker make illuminating contributions resonating around the subject of conflict management. I find both the Conflict of Responsibility and the Constructive Conflict interesting and essentially critical for the modern administrator in both public and private organizations. The two authors consider conflict in organizations and suggest ways in which such may be resolved. This paper shall briefly discuss some of the issues in conflict management that are brought up in the two pieces.
As an administrator, it is indeed true that the roles may often be contradicting and in relative competition against each other. In other words, the achievement of one set of objectives may necessarily mean the other objectives are compromised. This is often the case because of the uniting and intermediate role that administrators perform. As administrators, it is incumbent on them to see to it that the managerial objectives are attained. This often means that the administrator has to look over the employees and ensure that excesses are put on check. In addition, playing this role means identifying employee weaknesses and correcting the same.
On the other hand, the administrator represents the employee welfare to the organization. He is the main channel of communication to the management. He has to ensure their plight as employees is communicated and that the management pursues some solutions. In addition, the administrator being the human being that he is, in interacting with the employees would naturally want the best for his employees. As observed by Cooper, the administrator would want to earn both the loyalty and trust of the employees. He would want to appear to be fair to all of them. Achieving all these in one feat is often difficult and tedious given the competing interests. In addition, it is possible that the administrator would please one side and possibly annoy the other side. This is because regardless of the level of fairness, given the competing interests, there would be victors and losers. The latter would inevitably consider themselves disfavored by the system and lay blame on the administrator. It is these conflicting interests that perhaps lead to conflicts. Ideally, the best solutions in solving conflicts are discussed by Follett.
Follett examines three main options in resolution of conflicts. These are domination, compromise and integration. Typically, the administrator often has the discretion to elect which option to pursue. This is because of his position of authority which gives him the discretion to elect solutions to pursue. Given the complexities involved, the administrator may get confused and may succumb to where the pressure is most felt. In such situations, it is the management’s desires that may prevail over the wishes of the employees. This is because the administrator is often conscious of the large arms of the management. In addition, the other side (read employees) often presents little or no threats at all.
However, having gone through the larger argument in the work of the two authors, it is imperative for administrators to rule with an ethical context. It is essential for administrators to conduct their duties and discharge their functions from an ethical premise. This approach ideally appreciates the need to balance the interests of all the parties. In such an approach, management of conflicts would be based on the integrative model. Under the same, conflicting interests are often addressed in a way that gives due consideration to the competing parties and not merely dominating one party by the other.