CONFLICT MANAGEMENT

Conflict Management



Q.1: What Area Manager John H. has done so far to handle the team between his Technical Development Manager (Ralph) and his Product Engineering Manager (George) and whether or not his actions were helpful?

The team action has swept the business and enterprise worlds. Teams supply the key to improve relations into the twenty-first century. (Rees, 2006) Most persons characterize team as an assembly of persons employed simultaneously for a common reason, who should depend on each other to accomplish mutually characterized results.

 Teams are normally made up of a group of individuals; each individual owning distinct capabilities and skills. This component is what makes the use of   teams so advantageous; although, diversity can affect the mechanism of team(Mintzberg, 2003). Therefore, it is significant for   teams to realize the dynamics of   team and to regulate its natural flow.

In the light of the issue between Technical Development Manager (Ralph) and his Product Engineering Manager (George), Manager John spoke to Henry about the team between Ralph and George by talking to Henry. He showed no apathy for Ralph but still supported George's allegations against Ralph and also claimed to have faced similar problems during his own time. This left John more confused and in a state of indecision.

His actions left a lot to be desired and didn't help move towards the direction of team solving.

Q.2: How John H. should proceed with respect to managing the team?

First, John has to help define what the issue is, in spite of the natural desire to call the team immediately. All team members, including John, require to agree on what the difficulty is before a answer can be found(Handy, 2003). Try having each team constituent state what they believe the difficulty is and then select one declaration that most nearly characterizes the problem. Next, shatter the difficulty down into lesser parts for farther discussion.

Introduction and establishment of credibility

During the first stage, the john should play a passive role. The major task is to gain the believe and acceptance of the   teaming parties, in order that they start to accept as factual that he/she  should be adept of aiding them equitably as a individual on who they can rely at all times(Kellett, 2007). As skilled john should depart most of the conversing to the arguing parties, but should hear attentively and inquire searching inquiries to pinpoint the determinants of the argument, obstacles to a likely town and to recognize the matters in alignment of priority. Once integrity is accomplished and adequate backdrop information profited, the john should start to convince the parties to restart discussions, probably with a new perspective.

Steering the negotiation process

In the second stage, john should intervene more dynamically in guiding the negotiations. He may offer recommendations to the parties, try to set up the genuine opposition issue of each party and to find out localities in which compromises could be reached. (Barsky, 2000)John should s boost parties to put ahead suggestions and counter-proposals and (when an answer seems feasible) should start to advocate or even pressurize the participants ...