|← Nike Supply Chain System||Inappropriate Use of the Internet and Computers →|
The word conflict is typically used to refer to identified incongruities ensuing normally from some form of intrusion or antagonism. Conflict management, subsequently, is the application of approaches to deal with these apparent diversities in a constructive way. For a long period, managers had been trained to look at conflict in a negative light. Yet, conflict may be either positive or negative. While negative conflict is destructive and leads to reduced efficiency, positive conflict in reality may promote better work effort and aid in the performance of individual duties. Borisoff and Victor (1998) posited that companies have come to be aware of and to recognize the advantages that dealing with conflict gives. Due to our personal disparities, we correspond, we are confronted, and we are motivated to look for ingenious answers to our conflicts.
As a manager in a medium security firm, I have come to realize that there are several factors that may create organizational conflict in the security industry. According to Jehn (2003), scarce Resources are a major source of conflict in organizations. In the security industry, these resources include funds, equipment, personnel, or information. Frequently in the security firm, organizations departments are competing for limited or waning resources. This results into a situation where conflict is unavoidable. Another source of conflict in the security industry is jurisdictional vagueness. Where duty limits and task responsibilities are ambiguous, conflict is to be expected. People will differ about who is accountable for duties and available resources. Another source that is general in most organizations is personality differences. A conflict comes out when two or more individuals simply do not agree or have differing ways of seeing things.
These differences result from differences in personal character, outlooks, principles, and viewpoints. Power and rank discrepancies are also a source of conflict in security agencies. The conflict results from an individual having perceived dubious power over others or another. Individuals may also take part in conflicts with the aim of enhancing their power or status in any security firm. I have also come to learn that conflict arise for the reason that individuals might be in pursuit of dissimilar objectives. Finally, the major source of conflict, not only in security firms but also in all companies is Communication failure. Communication-based difficulties often warp communication leading to misperceptions and misapprehensions that might lead to long-lasting conflict.
In our firm, interdependence is high. Individuals or departments must rely on contributions from other individuals and departments to achieve the goals. As such, jurisdictional conflicts alongside others are inevitable. For the reason that personnel are always dependent on each other to be efficient, conflict within our security firm is almost natural. When this conflict emerges the management and the people involved classify the grounds of the conflict, scrutinize the consequences of the conflict, and deal with the conflicts based on the information gathered. We employ a number of conflict management styles in our security firm.
The first approach that is used is avoiding conflict resolution approach. This approach is short on both boldness and cooperativeness. The manager is neither assertively pursuing their favored result in the conflict nor is he or she supportive in aiding the differing individuals to sought their differences. The problem or conflict is never directly tackled or dealt with appropriately. The firm employs this method is used where the management considers the conflict petty. It is apt when there is no chance of resolving issues or inn situations where interference would come at a high price.
Furthermore, people employ competing conflict resolution approach. This method is commonly referred to as the win-lose style. The management encourages this approach in a situation where there is a need for a party involved to come out as highly firm and needs to arrive at a preferred goal in their favored way even when it means at the expense of some individuals. This style is suitable in situations where speedy significant action is required, for example, at times of emergencies. The management also uses this method to deal with unpopular decision for instance imperative cost cutting.
The third approach in our security firm is the accommodating conflict resolution method. This approach is a reflection of a high scale of cooperativeness. When there is a conflict, the manager in charge of its resolution overcomes his or her objectives, aims, and preferred upshots and lets the conflicting parties realize their own objectives, aims, and preferred upshots. The management encourages this approach in situations where the manager realizes that the conflicting parties have realized that they are at fault or in instances where the problem in question is more essential to one party than it is to the other party. This approach in conflict resolution is more fitting when the management wants to safeguard future relations between the conflicting parties.
The fourth approach used in this security firm is the compromising conflict resolution method. When employing this method the conflicting parties are typified by modest degree of assertiveness and cooperativeness. This approach can be referred to as bargaining or horse-trading. It usually generates a sub-optimal outcome. This method is suitable when the problem is of importance to the two or more parties involved in the conflict or when it is essential to find a provisional, well-timed solution. The security firm never employs this approach when there is an intricate issue that requires a problem-solving method.
The final method that our firm employs is the collaborating conflict resolution approach. This method is both highly assertive and cooperative. It is regularly expressed as the win-win situation (Shelton and Darling, 2004). The management engages both parties in resourcefully working towards attaining their own objectives, aims, and preferred upshots. The firm employs the approach where the issue in question is compound, and an ingenious or original amalgamation of ideas is necessary. This approach requires a lot of time.
In conclusion, on a personal level, I prefer to use an approach that is relevant to the conflict in question. Conflict management is an ongoing procedure. According to Borisoff and Victor (1998), conflict resolution involves constant communication and management. It is not a static process, as such; it is a practice that necessitates flexibility and regular assessment to really be useful and efficient. Our security firm approach is in line with my personal conflict management preference.