Conflict Resolution
Name:
Institution:
Conflict Resolution
Part I: Group Development
The group is currently at the forming stage where they are teaming up with the public school system in Washington D.C. Woodson Foundation have just realized that it is imperative for them to solve the problem with the help of a third party. Understanding that the newly formed entity should go through Tuckman’s four stages of group development will be helpful in organizing the prerequisites (Parker, 2009). With such knowledge, Woodson can plan their targets and budget appropriately. They can easily know what stage they are and where they are heading. In the case, they can use information from the four stages of group development to come up with a strong groundwork focusing on reducing truancy and crime. Having a proper understanding of the four stages of group development also assists in exploiting the performing stage to maximize the benefits of the school system and Woodson foundation.
Part II: Problem Identification
The primary problem being encountered by Woodson Foundation is a conflict in the organizational structure between Woodson Foundation and NCPIE. Currently, NCPIE system is characterized by a prioritization of parent-led management. The school administration system is designed to power the parent administrative figure. Therefore, the parents of the students are responsible for making the bulk of decisions concerning budgetary allocations, programs to be taught and the development strategy for the school. This model has created a situation in which teachers struggling with low student performance that originates from an inability within the staff to maintain supervision. The teachers and support staff have little motivation to help the students in their academic and co-curricular activities. The contribution of each member is valuable to the success of the new agency being developed. This is in stark conflict with Woodson’s organizational system that encourages creativity and experimentation. Therefore, its employees had greater autonomy from the managers and supervisors. In the creation of a new agency comprising of members from both organizations, conflict is bound to occur.
Part III: Retrospective Evaluation
One of the possible solutions to resolving team conflicts is through compromise. This approach involves first preparing for resolution by acknowledging a fundamental problem affects the group. Consequently, the impact of the conflict can be evaluated to determine its severity. Next, both parties must agree to work together in the conflict resolution process. This implies prioritizing team matters over other issues (Fleishman, Gerard, & O’Leary, 2009). Both parties will also been given a platform to facilitate open communication. This session allows for unrestricted expression of the genuine challenges affecting team cohesion. Understanding the situation involves clarifying the positions of each party and consequently pointing out the assumptions and facts of each side (Fleishman et al., 2009). Decision-making processes and formal evaluation techniques are applied at this stage. The next possible solution in this case involves policy formation. This strategy involves clearing up the issues by defining the job descriptions, jurisdiction, and powers of all the relevant personnel. This can be achieved through several conventional documents such as a code of ethics and company mission and vision (Withers & Wisinski, 2007). At the departmental level, managers can also have their own department-specific content.
Part IV: Reflection
Diversity
is always present and therefore developing accommodative policies will ensure
that the workplace is standardized and insured against religious, economic,
social, or even academic diversity issues. Personally, I would recommend that program
leaders should be vigilant and preempt any potential areas of conflict before they
escalate into bigger problems for the agency. In the event that a significant
conflict is discovered, attempting to solve it at the highest level is
preferable. Involving the subordinates employees in decision-making processes
is complicated, time consuming and expensive.
References
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Top of Form
Fleishman, R., Gerard, C., & O’Leary, R. (2009). Pushing the boundaries: New frontiers in conflict resolution and collaboration. Bingley, UK: JAI Press.
Parker, G. M. (2009). Team leadership: 20 proven tools for success. Amherst, MA: HRD Press.
Withers, B., & Wisinski, J. (2007). Resolving conflicts on the job. New York: AMACOM.
Bottom of Form