Conflict Identification Resolution

2

Conflict Identification and Resolution

Tashina Tupai

University of Arizona Global Campus

BUS610

Professor Anderson

May 27, 2025

Diverse opinions, a lack of communication skills, and difficulties engaging in specific tasks are all factors that can contribute to conflicts in the workplace. However, conflicts often occur in organizational environments with high operational requirements, such as the military. In the Prescribed Load List (PLL) shop, where a unit is in charge of keeping track of and preparing repair components, friction is standard due to deadlines, interdependent tasks, and leadership changes. According to research, unresolved disagreements have a negative impact on communication, morale, and performance. This paper examines three real-life disagreements in the PLL shop, determines the source and level of conflict, employs organized mediation techniques, and considers three possible outcomes for each occurrence. These examples demonstrate how to use conflict management theory in military settings.

Conflict Resolution 1

A situation emerged in the PLL shop wherein two junior personnel believed they were experiencing unequal workload distributions. One individual was responsible for routinely executing field recovery operations, while another oversaw the administrative functions within the office. Perceptions of bias led to discord and a reduction in motivation. Sometimes, people become entangled in disputes arising from perceived inequities in the distribution of incentives, responsibilities, or workloads (Baack, 2017) which, in this scenario, is the source of conflict. Variations among individuals serve as a considerable catalyst for conflict, particularly in teams experiencing high levels of strain (Rahim, 2022). The level of conflict is interpersonal, as the problem occurred between two individuals within the same unit (Baack, 2017).

To resolve the issue, the first step was identifying the problem. Leadership implemented a rotating daily troop-to-task schedule for both soldiers involved to ensure fairness in assigning tasks; a mediation session facilitated open communication among the soldiers; a collaborative task record was established to elucidate issues; and verbal commendation highlighted the significance of both elements. These measures correspond with the most effective strategies for resolving conflicts, clarifying expectations, and promoting fairness (Bulei, 2021; Baack, 2017).

The initial plausible conclusion suggests a win-win scenario when both soldiers experience recognition and an uplift in their morale. Should one soldier modify their behavior while the other remains angry, the result may be interpreted as a win-lose outcome. Neglecting to confront the core sentiment of inequity in a mutually detrimental situation could result in a lose-lose outcome with official repercussions and extended withdrawal.

Conflict Resolution 2

An additional conflict arises between the Supply Support Activity (SSA) warehouse and the PLL shop. Frequently, frustration and delays in mission-critical readiness were the result of miscommunication and delayed part requisitions. Cooperation and trust were compromised as both teams assigned blame to one another for continuous disruptions. The source conflict arises from breakdowns in organizational processes, particularly unclear roles and procedures. Because it involves two different units that must work together effectively to achieve a common goal, the level of conflict is intergroup (Baack, 2017; Shabani, Behluli, & Qerimi, 2022).

The conflict was resolved formally. However, the problem was identified when both PLL and SSA recognized patterns of communication failures and delays in their own work channels. Initially, the first step to resolving the issue is to conduct weekly maintenance meetings to determine the cause, which revealed a lack of standardized communication channels and tracking systems. A breakdown in communication is a leading cause for concern because of the detrimental effects it has on both work performance and job satisfaction (Baack, 2017). Leadership from both sides collaborated to develop solutions, which included implementing a shared spreadsheet for tracking, assigning team liaisons to manage part requests, and developing a formal SOP to outline communication and follow-up procedures. The last step involved the implementation of the shared tracking system and the scheduling of weekly coordination meetings. Both teams agreed to evaluate order accuracy and timeliness monthly to assess the outcome. Transparent processes and accountability help to reduce intergroup conflict (Baack, 2017). These changes improved communication, clarified roles, and facilitated better coordination.

There are three possible outcomes from resolving this intergroup conflict. A win-win outcome would be fully implementing shared tracking systems and standardized communication procedures, resulting in faster part fulfillment and better collaboration. Such cooperative solutions foster long-term trust and improve organizational efficiency (Baack (2017). In a win-lose situation, PLL improves its workflow, and SSA may view the process as micromanagement, resulting in dissatisfaction and passive resistance. While some progress is made, a lack of mutual buy-in may result in future setbacks. While some progress has been made, a lack of mutual collaboration may cause future setbacks. If neither team commits to the SOP nor tracking system, it will be a lose-lose situation with ongoing miscommunication. According to Baack (2017), failing to complete conflict resolution steps in intergroup settings will lead to ongoing inefficiencies and deeper divisions between units.

Conflict Resolution 3

Soldiers have reported dissatisfaction with the subsequent changes after the leadership transition at the PLL shop; the new changes added strict record-keeping requirements and daily reconciliation reports that all individuals were required to submit. Certain team members continued to adopt obsolete procedures, hindering responsibility for others' efforts. The source of conflict stems from people's unwillingness to change the company's operational techniques, particularly when team members experience exclusion from procedural changes. The level of conflict in this scenario is intragroup, whereas the conflict is between individuals in the same group, generating issues with group cohesion (Baack, 2017; Procházková & Skorková, 2024).

Conflict resolution involves identifying the problem, the parties involved, and their positions (Baack, 2017), which is the first step to finding a solution. The leadership observed that some soldiers showed reluctance regarding the new change requirements. Upon identifying the issue, it was evident that soldiers lacked a sense of commitment to the new strategy and did not understand its relevance. Leadership considered many alternatives, including delaying the rollout, providing training, and altering processes in response to team feedback. The team gave a presentation to explain the reasoning for the changes and to get feedback from troops on their execution. Following that, training was offered, and a method for encouraging excellent performance was implemented to encourage compliance. As a result, the team became more susceptible to accepting the new changes. Inspections were conducted daily at the close of business, and weekly feedback sessions were used to evaluate performance. Including team members in decision-making minimizes resistance while increasing commitment (Baack, 2017). This strategy effectively realigned the team's purpose with the shop's objectives while maintaining accountability.

Following the resolution method, three possible outcomes may occur. Job efficiency would benefit the team if the soldiers helped improve and implement the new standard operation changes. Improved comprehension and group ownership will result in consistent adherence and team cohesiveness. Baack (2017) claims that inclusive leadership reduces opposition and increases organizational commitment. A win-lose situation may occur if subordinate people support the change, but senior officials oppose it. This seclusion may negatively affect internal mentorship and morale, while continuing disagreement may impede cohesive collaboration. If the whole team disregards the new standards, it may lead to audit failures and strained relationships between team members and leadership. According to Baack (2017), prolonged opposition to organizational change can lead to a stagnant culture and poor performance.