Conflict management approaches in my agency
Conflict is the friction that arises when the members of the organization have different interests that end up competing. Conflict in itself should not be perceived as being bad. Rather, the problem lies in the approach employed in solving the conflict. Ordinarily, various organizations resort to using various approaches in solution of the conflict. The way in which the conflict is solved determines whether the conflict would have been destructive or constructive. A constructive conflict refers to the conflict that ends up improving the situation of the company or organization by taking into consideration the interests and aspiration of both conflicting groups. A destructive conflict refers to that conflict that ends up disfavouring one party over the other. The approaches employed by organizations ought to envisage the long term solution of all parties and eventual benefit of the organization in its endeavours and objectives.
The approaches in places of work and agencies are diverse. Ordinarily, an organization may employ to use a blend or a combination of approaches in the solution of conflict management. Preferably, these agencies would have the main approach of application and secondary approaches which they resort to in the failure of the first one. My agency employs the win -win approach of conflict management. The operating word in this approach is compromise. In this approach, every party involved in the conflict must be ready to compromise. Exactly what does compromise entail? To what extent is compromise applicable in my agency? Compromise is the ability to let go off your desires in the interest of the good for all. Compromise borrows largely from the utilitarian ration of reasoning. Utilitarian believers usually perform the action that maximizes the happiness for the majority and would be ready to sacrifice that which serves only a minority interest. In this regard, compromise usually entails the sacrifice of the competing interests and the adoption of the common interest for all. Perhaps one may be asking how possible this approach can be applied. Ordinarily, in any agency just like ours, the agency should have its core values and norms. It should have a clearly stipulated list of objectives. It is these values, norms and objectives that suffice for purposes of identifying the common good for all. The interest that is proximate to the objectives usually carries the day. The win-win approach essentially implies that at the end of the day, no party loses as the decision and solution pursued usually is in the interest of the whole organization.
The flipside of this approach lies in the fact that one may not be ready to sacrifice his or her interests, which he or she, may feel ought to be given preferential treatment. The question thus arises of how the special interests of parties can be sorted even with the pursuit of a utilitarian approach. In this case, the agency usually should be guided by the overriding objective. Exactly what does the organization intend to achieve? What values has the organization attached to the parties in conflict. Ordinarily, the approach taken by my agency entails the analysis of the benefits the parties in conflict accrue to the overall welfare and well being of the organization. The agency may find it convenient to suspend the objectives of the organization and pursue a solution that satisfies the interests of a conflicting party. This decision is usually influenced by the need to establish win-win situation in the organization.
How it matches and contradicts with my personal conflict management style
The win- win approach, which I prefer to call the compromise approach, essentially compares by and large with my personal preference of conflict management. One must appreciate the place of conflict in a society and embrace conflict positively. Conflict presents the organization with the opportunity to undo and fix the systemic mistakes and errors. It allows the organizational leadership a chance to listen to other people’s opinion and suggestions. The best method of solving a conflict entails the decision model based on the interest of the entire organization. The rubrics that the organization ought to apply in solution of conflicts include core values, objectives and norms of the agency.
However, the organization should not be necessarily limited to a utilitarian line of reasoning in addressing its conflicts. In my preferred method, I would rather be guided by the observation of the law and the rules of the game instead of limiting my reasoning to the interests of the majority. This is because, in most cases, the majority may always be wrong. Their wishes may amount to subversion of the law and consequently occasion a miscarriage of justice. It is essential for organizational leadership to observe the law first before attempting to please the majority in solving their common interests.
In conclusion, I recognise that conflict solving remains a difficult task that faces modern day managers. Conflicts are here to stay and the onus is on the management to examine ways of solving and addressing issues and factors that would eventually lead to conflict.
References
CDR Associates. (2007). Conflict Resolution for Managers and Leaders, Participants Workbook:. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Eunson, B. (2012). Conflict Management. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Jeong, H.-W. (2009). Conflict Management and Resolution:. New York: Taylor & Francis.
