Case study 2: Bill OMalley says No Way

1. What is the source of this conflict?

2. Assume that you were Mark. What conflict-handling orientation would you use?
Why?
3. How would external factors like social attitudes and Human Rights legislation
influence your choice of conflict handling orientations?

Answer

1. Bill had heard the rumour that Jim would be coming to work in the cost
department. Bill did not mince Jims words: I have never worked with an Aboriginal
and I never will. So, Bill was angry and this was an emotionally charge issue for him.
So, he just replied, I have no intention to working in the same department with that
black fellow. Bill was mentioned the black fellow who was Jim, the black fellow
used for usually offensive, a term used to refer to an Aborigine of Australia. So,
because conflict is a process in which one party perceives that his or her interests are
being opposed or negatively affected by another party. The sources of this conflict is
Jim words clearly show him irony and despise the Bill because Bill is Aboriginal.

Communication can be a source of conflict. Based on this article, Jim at this

form of communication was contrary with Bill. Jim was prejudice Bills back group
Conflict is ultimately based on perceptions; it exists whenever one party believes that
another might obstruct his or her efforts, whether or not the other party actually
intends to do so. Instead, relationship conflict focuses on people, rather than the
issues, as the source of conflict. The parties refer to interpersonal incompatibilities
such as personality clashes rather than legitimate differences of opinion regarding
tasks or decisions. Each party tries to undermine the others argument by questioning
her or his competency. Attacking a persons credibility or displaying an aggressive
response toward the person triggers defense mechanisms and a competitive
orientation.
 Relationship conflict is less likely to occur, or is less likely to escalate, when
team members have high levels of emotional intelligence. Emotionally intelligent
employees are better able to regulate their emotions during debate, thus reducing the
risk of escalating perceptions of interpersonal hostility. People with high emotional
intelligence are also more likely to view a co-workers emotional reaction as valuable
information about that persons needs and expectations, rather than as a personal
attack. But, Bill was lose control about his emotional, thus conflict between Bill and
Jim was occur.

2. If I am Mark, supervisor of cost accounting department. I will using conflict

resolution techniques. Firstly, Problem solving. I will invite or call Bill and Jim to
face-to-face meeting for the purpose of identifying the problem and resolving it
through open discussion.
Second, rules and procedures. The most simply and least costly method for
managing intergroup relationship is to establish , in advance, a set of formalized rules
and procedures that will specify how group members are to interact with each other.
For example, standard operating procedures are likely to specify that when permanent
staff, Bill are needed in accounting department, a request for new staff, Jim in this
form is be filled with the human resources department. Upon receipt of this form,
human resources begins standardized process to fill the request. Notice that such rules
and procedures minimize the need for interaction and information flow between the
departments or work groups.
Preparation and goal setting. In particular, as a negotiator, I should carefully
think through their initial-offer, target, and resistance points. I will consider
alternative strategies in case the negotiation fails. I will check their underlying
assumptions, as well as goals and values. Equally important is the need to research
what the other party wants from the negotiation. I will setting a specific goals in this
accounting department for which it is responsible, then I will let they knows what
they supposed to do.

3. The Policy on Competing Human Rights includes a framework for addressing

competing rights that the OHRC developed based on international human
rights principles, case law, social science research, and consultation with community
partners and stakeholders. The following table summarizes the frameworks three-
stage, process for recognizing and reconciling competing human rights claims:

Process for addressing competing human rights situations:

Stage One: Recognizing competing rights claims

Stage Two: Reconciling competing rights claims

Stage Three: Making decisions

Decisions must be consistent with human rights and other laws, court decisions,
human rights principles and have regard for OHRC policy. At least one claim must
fall under the Ontario Human Rights Code to be actionable at the Human Rights
Tribunal of Ontario.

Organizational process for addressing competing rights. By implementing the

OHRCs proposed approach, organizations can be confident that they have a conflict
resolution process in place that is consistent with human rights principles. Many
competing rights situations can be quickly resolved through an informal process that
may involve no more than one or two meetings. At the outset, organizations should
consider whether the situation is suited to an informal and expedited process. For
example, the facts of the situation and the framing of each claim may be
straightforward and not in dispute. The parties may already be well-informed about
each others claims, rights and obligations. They may have shown respect for each
others interests and be willing to engage in discussions about solutions without delay.
A quick process will generally involve running through the analysis with both
parties in a quick way. The focus here is less on a precise analysis of the rights at play,
and more on finding solutions that benefit all sides and respect human rights. If the
informal, quick process does not resolve the issue, then the organization may decide
to use a full and more formal process. However, it is important to consider a quick
resolution process first because workable solutions can be found relatively quickly in
most cases of competing rights claims.

Competing human rights situations will inevitably arise in many different

contexts, including workplaces, housing and schools. By following the approach
outlined in the Policy on Competing Human Rights, organizations may be able to
resolve tension and conflict between parties at an early stage. Resolving conflict early
helps organizations to address matters before they fester and become entrenched. This
in turn helps ensure the health and functioning of an organization, and can avoid
costly and time-consuming litigation.

Social Policy Attitudes. According to social dominance theory, individuals

who are social dominance oriented will favor social practices that maintain or
exacerbate inequality among groups and will oppose social practices that reduce
group inequality. Interpersonal conflict resolution techniques are based on the
recognition that the choice of a conflict management strategy depends on the intensity
of the conflict and the relative importance people place on maintaining good
relationships versus achieving goals.

Like a leadership style, the specific method of resolving conflict also depends
on a number of situational variables. The best approach will be the one that minimizes
the obstacles to project completion and helps to develop cohesive and effective
project teams. Individuals attempt to manage interpersonal conflict in a variety of
ways, depending on the relative importance and intensity of the conflict, the time
pressure for resolving the conflict, the position taken by the players involved, and the
motivation to resolve conflict on a long-term or a short-term basis.

Conflict management possibilities also depend on the ratio of assertiveness to

cooperation among the parties involved in the conflict, as well as on the type of
conflict. Conflict resolution techniques range from the power-based steamroller
approach to a more defensive, diplomatic, and tactical approach. Intermediate views
suggest variations of avoidance, give-and-take negotiation, collaboration, and
problem solving Blake and Mouton presented five general techniques for resolving
conflict: withdrawing, smoothing, forcing, compromising, and collaborating,
confronting and problem solving.

Reference