Unit 8 Project

Conflict Analysis: Case Example

James Bell

Waldorf University

Conflict Analysis Scenario

Edwin and Chris are both economists at their organization’s Central Planning and Project Monitoring Unit working under the supervision of the Chief Economist, Simon. The two have been working peacefully together until last month when the organization announced a vacancy in the position of principal economist in its newly created Resource Management Department. The incumbent is to be second to the organization’s Chief Economist. The two are being examined for the best candidate to fit the position and somehow that information leaked to them. Last week both were given assignments by Simon; Edwin was required to write a report critically analyzing the organization’s challenges in mobilizing resources while Chris was to give a detailed project priority matrix for the various projects the organization wishes to implement. When they met at the tearoom, the duo got into a conversation. “Brother, you know, I got acknowledged for my exemplary performance in calculus several times in campus,” uttered Edwin proudly, and continued in a mocking tone, “you were good in history, right?” Chris, taking note of Edwin’s implications replied, “Yes, sure brother, but look where we all ended, you are handling the histories and I aligning the digits. Quite achievements we had in campus, right?” Edwin walked away harrowed by Chris’ utterances.

Analysis of Conflict Behaviors

According to Detert & Edmondson (2011), workplace bullies take advantage of every single opportunity presented at the work place to make their victims feel inferior. The reactions of the victims however determine whether the bully succeeds in their mission to achieving the desired superiority. In some cases, ignoring and focusing on better issues than the bully’s agenda works well for their victims to not feel the side effects of bullying (Thye & Lawler, 2006). However, Ciby & Raya (2014) posits that organizational environments are learning environments where destructive behavior such as bullying are detrimental to the intended learning and growth for organizational members. In other cases, whistle blowing or developing counter action strategies solves the problem for the victims (Thye & Lawler, 2006). In the above scenario, Edwin utterances show bully behavior as he sought the very opportunity of their time at the tearoom to mock Chris. Moreover, he used the assignments issued to create a sense of inferiority in his colleague. Chris on the other end took the matter in his hands and developed a counter action to help him not succumb to Edwin’s bullying. Although his utterances as well show bully characteristics, they were only meant to counter and help him survive Edwin’s bullying.

Analysis of Conflict Outcomes

Striving to fit in the vacant position created a desire for unilateral control in Edwin which resulted to prevalence of an unnecessary competition environment between him and his colleague. The competition in turn resulted to bullying and counter-bully behavior which brought about a sense of enmity between the two. Edwin was so determined to win the position that he felt what he was being tasked to do was way below what he could handle. With the onset of jealous he felt that he deserved what appeared to him as the more technical assignment, which he couldn’t get and resulted into bullying his workmate to announce his self-thought supremacy. According to Friesenborg (2015), in order to gain unilateral control people seek to gain recognition by building strategies to accrue social capital and may do so by threatening or punishing people, using aggressive or passive techniques. This is actually what Edwin did, understanding that the incumbent in the vacant position would be second to the chief economist.

Analysis of Values and Deep Assumptions

Detert & Edmondson (2011) assert that a person’s true nature and values is reflected by their behaviors and are contingent on the egocentric desires and goals of the self. However, when not presented with demanding situations such behavior may not be shown as it is, according to Friesenborg (2015), buried underneath the embraced values. Prior to announcement of the vacancy Edwin and Chris worked amicably. It was until then greed, ego and selfishness took the better part of Edwin. His behavior was driven by various assumptions. For instance, he assumed he deserved a better position than his current; that he is qualified to fit the position; that he was superior to others and others ought to respect him; and that Chris was inferior to him and could not do anything to counter that.

Conclusion

The differences between the two grew bigger to the extent of each getting their own office. Although they won on this one and, especially Chris, enjoyed being out of the others way, they both lost the vacancy to Milslav, an intern of two years in their department. There are several conclusions one could draw from this scenario. However, the most important is that, exposed to more natural situations, people reveal their better identities and real values compared to when in normal and more ideal situations. When in a more natural settings, people will forget about the embraced values and natural phenomenon such as desire to be better than what one actually is, will lead to them exposing their real values. This happens because, according to Friesenborg (2015), the contradiction between one’s own words and actions blind them.

References

Ciby, M., & Raya, R. P. (2014). Exploring victims’ experiences of workplace bullying: A grounded theory approach. Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, 39(2), 69-81.

Detert, J. R., & Edmondson, A. C. (2011). Implicit voice theories: Taken-for-granted rules of self-censorship at work. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 461-488.

Friesenborg, L. (2015). The culture of learning organizations: Understanding Argyris’ theory through a socio-cognitive systems learning model. Forest City, IA: Brennan-Mitchell.

Thye, S. R., & Lawler, E. J. (2006). Social psychology of the workplace. San Diego, CA: Elsevier.