Step One: Accept Conflict
The CEO wanted the company to deliver products to its customers upon purchase. The BOD disliked the concept since according to their outlook the idea would increase the workforce and management team, which would be quite costly to the company. The BOD deliberated that the company should invest in other activities to create good company image and increase sales. The original conflict was perceived as a problem that could slow down the operations of the organization and lead to losses. None of the parties were ready to take the middle path.
It must be noted that instead of perceiving the ideas as problems both parties should view them as opportunities for expansion and act as partners to propel the company towards success (Marcus, 1995). Therefore, the first problem must be perceived constructively as an opportunity for the company to deliver products for the customers, while the second one should be perceived as a challenge for the company to work out its image and increase sales by investing in other activities.
Thus, instead of referring to the ideas as problems, the negotiator can look at them as an opportunity (Goldfien & Robbennolt, 2007). Changing the language regarding the problem from negative to positive provides more confident and optimistic approach towards the problem. The use of positive words enables a negotiator to be more creative and insightful in identifying effective solutions and breakthrough ideas.
Step Two: Recognize the Consequences
The BOD and the CEO were to lose surmountable time conflicting and refusing to support another party. This could have caused the company huge losses. Being outnumbered by the board the CEO would immediately lose interest and confidence in leading the team. This would have negatively affected the managerial team being led by the CEO. On the other hand, the board would have lost interest in making decisions on behalf of the company.
Furthermore, the quality of patient care might reduce since it would take longer to implement major decisions (Mayer, 2012). Since the CEO is likely to be demoralized under such pressure, the staff may difficult time operating to the patients’ needs, thereby affecting the care offered to the patients.
If the conflict remains unresolved, there are a number of long-term effects on healthcare organizations (Marcus, 2002). The lack of trust from the other side would be catastrophic to the firm because each side may be convinced that another side is deceitful and is driven by selfish ambitions. The eventual impact may entail the collapse of the company.
Step Three: Formalize the Motive
The CEO can guide the team in enhancing relationship for the sake of the company and for communication within the organization. The BOD, on the other hand, can willingly resolve the conflict to relieve suffering and pain the CEO may be undergoing as a person. Both parties can seek to resolve the conflict to reach a settlement and build capacity.
The motive of appearance will ensure that the parties are in good communication terms through engaging the needs, interests, and beliefs of another group as well as being clear on the group’s needs, values, and beliefs (Blum, 2013). Such settlement, which is based on voluntary and non-adversarial behavior, attaches value by maintaining a workable and fulfilling relationship between the parties (Bercovitch & Jackson, 2009).
The most applicable ADR process in resolving the conflict would be mediation, since both parties failed to reach an amicable solution and push the company forward. Mediation restores confidence and trust in one another (Roberts & Ash, 2009), which is necessary in this case for both the CEO and BOD to cooperate in future.
Step Four: Begin the Learning Process
The two commonalities the parties share are mistrust and frustration. Since they were uncomfortable in supporting each team’s idea, they broke the trust that they used to have all through. They have also challenged the confidence of each team, especially after failing to support the CEO. Due to the conflict of interest in presenting the contradictory ideas, the team may resent another team as they fail to see the opportunity for the development of the company in their opponent’s idea.
Empathy can enable the opponents to get better understanding of the ideas they put forth. This is a useful strategy that helps analyzing the need to build capacity and support the idea of the opponent’s team (Weaver, 2003). In case of bitter exchange, the opponent’s team can experience what another team is going through within the context of the conflict.
Recognition and respect stem from the learning process through expressing of empathy and after listening to the idea of the opponent’s team carefully (Marcus, 1995). Therefore, both teams come to realize that they have the same aim, which is the success of the company. Recognition and appreciation of the opponent’s point of view can be achieved by considering the positive impact of each of the contradicting ideas upon the development of the company.
Step Five: Find the Logic
The conflict is really about supporting the idea of each team. Since the opponent’s team had to support the idea of another party, both teams failed to show support due to the lack of soberness. Both visions were conflicting and soberness was needed to view the contributions to the company (Bannon & Collier, 2003).
The positions can be reframed by allowing each team share its attributes of the idea together with the challenges in actualizing the idea. This can be performed soberly without allowing another team negate. Then both teams can compare the similarity of their ideas and needs (Bercovitch & Jackson, 2009).
Each party hopes to give the company the best of a concept to propel it towards more profits. By considering the impact of their ideas to the company the team can assess the need to maintain relationship and communication and build capacity.
Step Six: Check the Choices
The changes each party will consider include the impact of their ideas when it comes to impeding the achievement of the company, and concern for the impact of the party’s ideas on another party in damaging the relationship. In addition, the party may evaluate emotional competence, empathy and compassion, which fortify cooperative relationships.
Possible solutions that each party may consider in resolving the conflict include listening to each other during a meeting, allowing each team speak on their behalf, and making a compromise (Marcus, 2002). Meeting will allow each team view the valid interests in each other’s ideas and agree to compromise in the area of conflict.
To resolve the conflict, each team will have to share soberly the obstacles they view in implementing their ideas. The team with the greatest obstacle and challenge will have to concede defeat and support the other in implementing their idea. One team may allow the idea of the other team members to be exercised first before allowing the implementation of their own idea.
Step Seven: Ponder the Possibilities
Through the collaborative problem solving each team managed to analyze the idea of the opponent’s team more soberly. They managed to see the similarity of each idea and obstacles to achieving the set goal. Through collaboration each team managed to see the benefit of each party in decision-making and, thus, the need to strengthen their relationship.
Tangible rewards to the organization include production of goods that must be translated into more profits. Intangible rewards of conflict resolution, satisfaction, peacefulness, and hope include better communication strategies between the BOD and the CEO and enhanced policy. The company also expects to enjoy solution that is more amicable and more profitable in terms of sales. Through better communication and relationships the company is to improve its competitiveness within the industry.
Step Eight: Find Common Purpose
Conflict resolution can help enhancing the performance of the company’s employees, including but not limited to the top management of any organization. Employees will be unified in knowledge as everyone will be expected to get everything right (Weaver, 2003). Furthermore, it helps to build trust within all parties of a conflict; and the resolution will set precedence.
Conflict resolution within a health care system can improve communication, teamwork of the administrators, and assist in finding of an amicable solution to the challenges encountered. As a result, relationship between the administrators and the staff will be strengthened, tension will be reduced and mutual understanding will be achieved.
The most applicable ADR process is negotiation of the parties. This is because all of the parties understand the effects of the conflict, the challenge they may be facing, and the need for effective decision-making. This helps to improve morale and skills in managing tension in the workplace, and will help to make teamwork more effective (Tracy, 2017).
Step Nine: Anticipate Conflict
In future, potential conflict may emerge when the compromising team expects another party to support its ideas irrespective of the repercussions. The winning team may expect that the compromising team will support its idea again.
Signs of problems can be identified before they arise through assessing the kind of relationship between teams, success in teamwork, the form of communication, and the productivity of the workers.
To prevent and manage conflicts, parties ought to ensure that there are set standards and policies guiding them on specific areas of conflict. Parties need to be equipped with good negotiation skills and willingness to listen to the opponent.
Step Ten: Move beyond Conflict
In order to incorporate healthy conflict resolution into policy and procedures effective communication and positive collaboration is necessary, which will facilitate the promotion of successful accommodation of conflicting interests (Tracy, 2017). Effective communication and collaboration coupled with the right attitude are essential within the framework of conflict management (Marcus, 1995). Therefore, a strong work ethic is utterly important to deal with conflicts and prevent them from happening in future.
Bannon, I., & Collier, P. (Eds.). (2003). Natural resources and violent conflict: Options and
Actions. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
Bercovitch, J., & Jackson, R. (2009). Conflict resolution in the twenty-first century: Principles, methods, and approaches. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Blum, A. (2013). Motive, desire, drive: The discourse of force. Journal of Comparative Research in Anthropology and Sociology 4(2).
Goldfien, J. H., & Robbennolt, J. K. (2007). What if the lawyers have their way? An empirical
assessment of conflict strategies and attitudes toward mediation styles. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 22(2): 277–320.
Marcus, J. L., Dorn, B. C., & McNulty, E. J. (1995). Renegotiating health care: Resolving conflict to build collaboration. (1st Ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Marcus, J. L. (2002). A culture of conflict: Lessons from renegotiating health care. Journal of
Health Care Law and Policy 5(2/6).
Mayer, B. (2012). The dynamics of conflict: A guide to engagement and intervention (2nd ed.).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Roberts, A. & Ash, T. G. (eds). (2009). Civil resistance and power politics: The experience of
non-violent action from Gandhi to the present. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Tracy, B. (2017). The 10-step process to solve any problem. Brian Tracy International.
Retrieved from http://www.briantracy.com/blog/personal-success/10-step-process-to-solve-any-problem-critical-thinking/
Weaver, A. (2003). Conflict and reconciliation in captive bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus: Marine mammal science. Society for Marine Mammalogy 19(4): 836–846. doi:10.1111/j.1748-7692.2003.tb01134.x