Case Study 3 Management

...

Both parties also have different ways of carrying out work which causes cognitive conflict. This is the main source discontent between the two parties. Based on the analysis given, here are some thoughts on how Mr. Davis and Mr. Green can manage their conflict and negotiate toward a better work relationship.

For the conflict both parties need to:

- Recognize their work differences and how each will go about doing their specific tasks.

- Understand who has access to what information about how to carry out a task and voice their opinions on the overall usefulness of the info

- Understand where this first began, was it with Mr. Greens failure to update his calendar or his disagreement on company growth?

- Take blame for negligence. For Mr. Davis, it is his leadership style and unwillingness to help Mr. Green assimilate. For Mr. Green, it is his failure to get consistent feedback, do something without informing his superior, and not trying to learn enough about management.

- Understand where their common interests lie and what their true goals are. Without understanding this, it is hard for them to fully resolve their conflict.

For negotiation:

- Both parties state their issues, position, and interests.

- Focus on an integrative negotiation, where alternative solutions are made up to satisfy both parties. This is the best route considering both parties have opposing viewpoints.

- Both need to settle for some kind of compromise, whether its accepting the growth is not correct or that Mr. Green needs to be more up to speed with his positon.

- Utilize common interests to bring both parties together and attempt to compromise on the differing interests.

- Find an alternative course of action if both parties cannot come to an agreement (BATNA – best alternative to a negotiated agreement)

- Figure out all possibilities that would be accepted by both parties (ZOPA – zone of possible agreements)

- Figure out how both parties can use their differing skillsets and views to better the company. Allow for Mr. Green to focus on what he does best within his job, while Mr. Davis will only intervene if his performance is down.

- Both parties should be more transparent with their intentions. This will allow for more trust between Mr. Green and Mr. Davis, without basing their actions on assumptions.

If the two parties have a successful negotiation, it is important that Mr. Davis continues to motivate Mr. Green in an appropriate way to avoid any additional future conflict. Currently, Mr. Davis seems to be attempting to motivate Mr. Green with the following theories:

Reinforcement Theory – Positive or negative reinforcements affect an employee’s behavior. Mr. Davis thinks that his negative evaluation of Mr. Green will result in a change that fits his liking. However, it has only caused more confusion among the two parties.

Theory X – Employees do not like work and need to be monitored and evaluated to assure they meet company goals. This is exemplified by Mr. Davis’ constant negative evaluation of Mr. Green and micro management, which Mr. Davis claims to be a result of Mr. Green’s “lack of enthusiasm.”

Going forward, Mr. Davis should adopt a goal-setting theory. This is where Mr. Davis will set difficult, but achievable goals to motivate Mr. Green. Unlike previous forecasts, Mr. Davis needs to set a goal that is realistic and proven to be possible through factual evidence. It is also recommended that Mr. Davis consider the Four-Drive theory. This is a type of motivation that satisfies an employee’s emotions and behaviors on all fronts. This would include rewarding good performers, creating reliance and friendship with coworkers, and increased transparency and fairness to help build trust.

While no one likes conflict in the work place, it can easily be turned into a positive if it is negotiated and analyzed properly. Hopefully the current situation between Mr. Davis and Mr. Green can result in a positive outcome.