|← 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.
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.