The phenomenon of organizational conflict and its impact on the performance of organizations has generated increasing attention from organizational scholars especially after the realization that organizations are ever more subject to conflicting demands imposed by a multiplicity of factors arising from both internal and external operating environments. Liebler & McConnell (2008) asserts that conflict is an inevitable constituent of cooperative action, and that its consequences are experienced by all stakeholders within the organizational framework.
As a matter of fact, according to the authors, organizational life to a large extent consist of intricately coordinated conflict at all levels of the organization and, thus, it should be the manager’s primary function to promote cooperation and lessen conflict among parties to enhance positive organizational outcomes. Through employing a case study scenario, this paper purposes to demonstrate how blurred authority relationships and organizational structure may lead to conflict, and the strategies that could be used to minimize similar conflict in the future.
According to Liebler & McConnell (2008), “…conflict is basically a state of external and internal tension that results when two or more demands are made on an individual, group or organization” (p. 357). In the case study, conflict arises from the demands made by George Mann (supervisor, maintenance department) and Sally Carter (supervisor, human resources and payroll) on the mechanisms to follow when an employee needs to take some time off to take care of personal issues. Below, the paper evaluates the two propositions that could have been advanced to the CEO, Jane Arnold, to argue the case for taking particular actions.
George Mann’s argument concerning the conflict derives its strengths from three critical areas. First, the line manager’s position in the hospital’s organizational structure and hierarchy of authority allows a superior to offer directives to subordinate staff. As such, Mann was only demonstrating his power as the line supervisor in the maintenance department. However, the case study demonstrates an intentional overlap and indistinct jurisdiction of authority regarding who should be in charge in giving employees permission to attend to personal business.
This, according to Liebler & McConnell (2008), can lead to persistent jockeying for organizational territory, including intra-organizational power struggles. Second, the maintenance supervisor could advance the fact that the employee in question was also acting in an official capacity by the virtue of the fact that he was to pick up some maintenance components for the lawn mowers as he went about doing his personal business. Again, this points a shortcoming at the organizational structure in terms of the development of adequate mechanisms through which personal business can be separated from official engagements (Salami, 2010).
Third, the decision to act can be defended by bringing out to the open the fact that the HR policy requiring employees to punch out their time-cards was not been fully implemented by the relevant department (HR). The case study demonstrates that the policy manual appeared infrequently used and, as such, it could not offer the intended guidelines to the employees. As such, the policy could be termed as vague and lacking in direction (Kumar, 2009). This demonstrates an apparent weakness on the HR department, and it’s a valid reason to lay blame on the HR personnel involved for not creating awareness on the existing HR policies
Sally Carter’s arguments concerning the conflict rotate around two critical areas. The HR and payroll specialist could argue that her functional authority had been transgressed by the line manager since she was in the rightful position to consider the employee’s reasons for seeking time off. This argument points to possible power struggles and intradepartmental recognition attempts brought about by increased specialization within the health institution, and which often leads to conflicting demands (Salami, 2010). Liebler & McConnell (2008) argues that “…although the line manager retains authority, the specialist must be included in the planning and decision-making processes; the manager is no longer the sole agent” (p. 361).
Against this backdrop, Carter could progress a valid argument that the line manager acted outside his jurisdiction by not involving the HR specialist in making a decision to allow the employee some time off for whatever reasons. Second, Carter is backed by the long-standing policy that requires employees to punch their time-cards each time they take time off to attend to personal matters. As such, the decision to permit the employee to attend to personal issues should have been based on the existing policy However, it could be contested that they HR policy was not clear-cut since the policy manual was infrequently used (Kumar, 2009).
It is the function of the CEO, Jane Arnold, to synthesis the arguments fronted by the two supervisors and workout a tenable solution to make the conflict more acceptable and manageable to all the parties involved. This entails the employment of conflict resolution strategies. According to Salami (2010), “…conflict resolution is a process in which interpersonal communication is used to allow two conflicted parties to reach an amicable and satisfactory point of agreement” (p. 77).
First, the CEO should use this conflict to clarify authority relationships and organizational jurisdictions so as to curtail blurring of authority structures in addition to removing conditions that propagate undue and unhealthy competition for power (Liebler & McConnell, 2008). Here, the CEO can employ the confronting/collaborating strategy to propagate a win-win solution for both parties by stressing information sharing, openness, flexibility, and illumination of issues and challenges that may be thought to trigger the conflict so as to reach a solution that is mutually acceptable and respectable to both parties (Salami, 2010).
This can be achieved by enforcing guidelines that clearly states who should be the overall signatory where issues of employees are concerned. In information sharing, a policy could be designed to allow the supervisors equal say and voice in discharging employees to take care of personal issues since both represent positions of authority. Such an action will inarguably strengthen agreement and heighten morale (Liebler & McConnell, 2008), not mentioning the fact that it will serve as basis for cordial relationships between the two departments.
A policy that clearly dissects official engagements from personal affairs needs to be developed and implemented. The differentiation between the two is fundamental to ensure that no confusion or conflict is created when employees are engaged in either personal or official matters. As it stands, there was no policy in place to support Mann’s decision to mix personal issues with official engagements though his action could have gone a long way to ensure the institution’s lawn mowers remained operational.
The long-standing policy requiring employees to punch out when leaving the hospital for personal reasons must also be implemented to the letter to minimize similar conflict in the future. Kumar (2009) has demonstrated how vague and unclear policy guidelines are a sure recipe for organizational conflict due to the reason that they project indistinguishable boundaries within the organizational structure.
Lastly, it can be concluded that both parties had some shortcomings in making their particular decisions. As such, the CEO can utilize the compromising strategy to amicably solve the conflict. This strategy, according to Pache & Santos (2010), entails encouraging give-and-take scenarios to construct positive work behavior and attitudes. Through compromise, both parties are bound to tone down their power struggles and work for the greater good and sustainability of the hospital.
Reference List
Kumar, V. (2009). The importance of a clear-cut HR policies and procedures manual. Web.
Liebler, J.G., & McConnell, C.R. (2008). Management principles for health professionals, 5th Ed. Ontario, NY: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Pache, A., & Santos, F. (2010). When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 455-476.
Salami, S.O. (2010). Conflict resolution strategies and organizational citizenship behavior: The moderating role of trait emotional intelligence. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 38(1), 75-86.