Organisational Conflict Resolution: Case Study And Implications

The Conflict and the Mediation Process

1.1 Identification of the causes of the conflict

The issues identified here is among the organisational hierarchy. The main conflict that is portrayed ere is between the Business Development Manager, Ken and the Business Development Executive, Susan. The incompetence of the previous team lead who have been in the position of the BDM for a sustainable period led to the ascension of Ken in this post. The conflicts were mainly caused due to the different between the working perception between the executive and the manager.

1.2 Description of the manifestation of the conflict

Now, Ken is not at all satisfied with the work methodology of Susan. When, he tries to convey his areas of apathy regarding Susan’s work, Susan puts up resistance citing that so far the organisation or her ex-BDM Bob did not have any issues with the way she managed the team. That is why, she was in an awe when the BDM asked her to go through the project management course again. Another matter of concern that Ken had regarding Susan was the way she perceived the importance of receiving feedback and the ways implemented for receiving of feedback from the team members. In fact, she defended that the sources from where Ken have received feedback regarding the work methodology of Susan might be flawed.

This is where Clare’s role as a professional mediator comes in. she would be facilitating the meeting between Ken and Susan so that they can have a constrcurive discussion.

Initially the professional mediator of TCM group, Clare decided to meet both ken and Susan separately. In this part of the discussion, the mediator mainly concentrated on understanding the interests as well as the needs of the individual candidates. Susan was almost frustrated with the way the work was going at TCM. She used to enjoy a certain level of freedom and independence which Ken have been trying to intimidate. Hence, she was at the receiving end of the situation and she actually quoted that if the mediation session went wrong she would stand absolutely vulnerable before the hierarchy.

The main purpose of the first meeting with Clare was to uphold what both of Ken and Susan would be upholding at the joint meeting. This is a very basic approach to mediation as Erkutlu and Chafra (2018), puts it. It was up on the mediator to decide whether the individual approaches of both of them in the context of the meeting would be right or wrong.

Implications of the Mediation Process

The second individual session involved the discussion of the significant points that each of the participants would be upholding at the joint meeting. In this context, when Susan was asked about the points that she would highlight, she reflected the points that she felt were evident after having clash with the BDM for 3 to 4 occasions. The points were:

• BDM Ken did not listen to what significant points Susan have to highlight, time and again
• Secondly, Ken never appreciated what Susan ever did. She felt that all of her approaches could not be wrong. Hence, it was unjust and partial; that Ken always pointed out flaws in her actions and motives
• Thirdly, her straight claim was that Ken never allowed him the space or scope to be creative

Again, in the second meeting, the point points of allegation of Ken against Susan were like:

• He directly alleged that Susa is not a team player
• Second allegation against Susan was that she always felt needy of praise
• Thirdly, he felt that Susan was somewhat naïve regarding the areas that the department particularly wanted to improve in.

After that Clare, the professional mediator arranged for a joint meeting with Ken and Susan in her presence. Her approach was simple and quite relevant.

O Rummel’s unified theory of conflictn an alternative basis, Susan got the first opportunity to speak uninterruptedly. Using this opportunity, Susan reflected that Ken had a predominant trait of himself and he is deliberate in his demand to put a stamp of his own accreditation on every footstep of the department. Even, Michel, Newness and Duniewicz (2016), advocates this methodology. Susan also reflected that he was also crazy to evade every policy that Bob had during has been using his tenure.

In the first space after hearing what Susan had to say, the mediator asked Ken to be stuck with what he had prepared with his saying, rather than being responsive of Susan’s speech.

Susan, in her role as a mediator, tried to summarise briefly what both of them had pointed out and thus analyse with eviction if the workplace conflict had a negative impact on the relationship of the two in person.

Rather than pointing out further clauses of conflict in each other’s opinion, in her part of the reflection, the professional mediator pointed out how important it was for both Susan, in the executive role and Ken in the Manager’s role for the organisation. Even Zhang et al. (2018), professes that this step is very essential for simplified organisational conflict resolution. She spotted that both of them had shared the fact if they could not come to a mutual solution, the consequences would be highly harmful for the company. She reflected that it could amount to job losses and as such the whole organisation’s performance could be negatively affected as an outcome of this. The mediator’s model of approach towards organisational conflict was quite simple. She made the two of them understand how essential it was for them to resolve the conflict. In individual sessions she concentrated on understanding the nature of conflict that the two participants were having.

Shortcomings of the Process

The implications of the mediator made the two of them realise that more than personal conflicts it was more essential to look up at the organisation’s crisis at the moment. As Michel, Newness and Duniewicz (2016), relates, this is the basic motive of the professional mediators. Moreover, when Susan was trying firmly to establish her allegation, in the joint session, Clare asked her to justify her clause with an example. She was able to do that and Ken had to admit her condition. After that when it was time for Ken to speak up, he also realising that his personal conflicts with Susan actually did not matter much against the gravity of the organisational problem, pointed out that it was most essential to work together as a team.

He simply wanted Susan to do some minor formalities which would suffice his own work methodology. Rest assured, he was at ease with the working spirit of the team and actually appreciated the effort also. The mediator also wanted Ken to make sure that it was not Susan that Ken was trying to pick up in person. Rather confronting Susan was his approach to make implications towards the whole team. The most important outcome of the session was that the Business Development Manager realised that he needs to appreciate the employees for bringing out the best in them.

Similarly, the business Development Executive also realised that it was essential for her to go through the project management training in order to realise and understand the importance of the new software to record proceedings. In fact, when the mediator narrated the key points that came out as an impact of the joint session, both Susan and Ken realised where and how they could team up and deliver the necessary outcomes for the organisation, avoiding engaging in to power conflict and critiquing each other’s way of work.  This model of mediation is also advocated by Mo and Shi (2017).

After her own analysis, the professional mediator finally pointed out two areas where she supposed the two of them should focus up on for in order to ensure a sustainable and favourable working atmosphere in the future endeavours that they would undertake in the scope of the organisation. It is also worth mentioning here that the two of them agreed over the analysis of the mediator and finally commented that it was okay with them to come to a concluding position and they ensued that it would not be more difficult for them to work together to the fulfilment of the organisational demands.

Conclusion

The actions undertaken by the TCM’s professional mediator was perfectly customised to the issues that cropped up between the Business Development Manager of the TCM and the Business Development Executive. However, strategic implications regarding any further issue that could come up in the future was missing. In this circumstance, the professional mediator should have undertaken two to three more individual sessions with the participants. It is evident that quick resolution of the inter-organisational conflict was very necessary for the smooth processing and working of the whole work team.

However under the working space of the new Business development Manager, in the near future, more employees of the team could be having issues in working together. The mediator should have taken a more in depth model of mediation in order to solve the conflict. It is evident that the executive is the person who works in direct communication with the employees (Michailidis & Banks, 2016). Hence, it is not enough for only Susan to accept the working methodology of the new manager, only because her personal conflict with the manager have been resolved.

In case, if in future, any other employee comes up with any other form of organisational issue in working under the new Business Development manager, she would be the sole medium of communication with the manager and in such a position, she would have acute problems in managing the situation single headedly.

Hence, in the current environment, it is very essential that the process of professional mediation be enlarged and the other important members of team like the Team Lead or the Assistant Team Lead should have individual sessions with the mediator. They should reflect whether they are having any important areas of conflict with the new Business Development Manager.

The last implication is that the mediator should have given much more time to both of the members to beseech if they were having any more areas of conflict. The mediator seemed focused on resolving the three issue only. She should have given the time to the members to speak in front of them.  

In case, if there were still some underlying issue between them that they have not been able to recollect, could have been reflected at that time. In addition, after the resolution of conflict, the two members should have been given some additional time to them and asked them to make two or three valuable and relevant suggestions regarding team handling, project management and peer-reviewing.

Conclusion

The process of conflict management have been helpful for me to understand what could have been the possible implications in the case of one of my past experience. Once I had a long drawn strife with one of my peers regarding the approach and choosing the theoretical implications to the assignment. In this context we always discussed what was supposed to be done and what feasible strategies to be undertaken only during the group study session. We tried to avoid conflict by staying out of this issue at the other times. However, now I realise that I could have also followed the same work methodology hat have been implied by the mediator in this case. The peer as well as I could have sat for a solo session and scribed up what methods we want to follow individually. Later, we could have had a joint session and discussed as well as justified which activities would have been the most justified for conducting the assignment in the best way.

Reference List and Bibliograhy

Erkutlu, H., & Chafra, J. (2018). Despotic leadership and organizational deviance: The mediating role of organizational identification and the moderating role of value congruence. Journal of Strategy and Management, 11(2), 150-165.

Michailidis, E., & Banks, A. P. (2016). The relationship between burnout and risk-taking in workplace decision-making and decision-making style. Work & Stress, 30(3), 278-292.

Michel, J. S., Newness, K., & Duniewicz, K. (2016). How abusive supervision affects workplace deviance: A moderated-mediation examination of aggressiveness and work-related negative affect. Journal of Business and Psychology, 31(1), 1-22.

Michel, J. S., Newness, K., & Duniewicz, K. (2016). How abusive supervision affects workplace deviance: A moderated-mediation examination of aggressiveness and work-related negative affect. Journal of Business and Psychology, 31(1), 1-22.

Mo, S., & Shi, J. (2017). Linking ethical leadership to employee burnout, workplace deviance and performance: Testing the mediating roles of trust in leader and surface acting. Journal of Business Ethics, 144(2), 293-303.

Zhang, X., Bollen, K., Pei, R., & Euwema, M. C. (2018). Peacemaking at the workplace: a systematic review. Negotiation and conflict management research, 11(3), 204-224.

Valle, M., Kacmar, K. M., Zivnuska, S., & Harting, T. (2018). Abusive supervision, leader-member exchange, and moral disengagement: A moderated-mediation model of organizational deviance. The Journal of social psychology, 1-14.

Neves, P., & Story, J. (2015). Ethical leadership and reputation: Combined indirect effects on organizational deviance. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(1), 165-176.