Conflict Management
A real life conflict that I had experienced in the past occurred while I was employed by the United States Postal Service. The conflict situation revolved around a disciplinary procedure that pertained to me as a result from an incident that involved a dog attack while I was delivering the mail.
A postal business patron had complained on numerous occasions that the postal delivery person never picks up her outgoing mail which she leaves on her desk in her lobby on a daily business day basis. As a Letter Carrier Technician which involved rotating five different routes I worked this particular route on the day in question of the conflict. Earlier in the week I was informed by a substitute supervisor with a written note that I was to make sure that this patron’s mail was picked up along with her regular delivery. There was a safety issue at her facility caused by a loose dog on the premises that charged the door as soon as the postal carrier got anywhere near the door. Although we were allowed to use discretion and not deliver the mail when there was a safety issue, the substitute supervisor was adamant and I was given a direct order to make sure her mail was picked up. While trying to re-enter the facility to pick up the mail after handing the mail directly to the patron outside because of the dog I was attacked and struck the dog with a shovel to protect myself. I was assured that the dog would be restrained for a few minutes before I re-entered the facility. Unfortunately the dog was not restrained and I was subsequently disciplined severely with a letter of removal or was given a choice to resign. I chose the latter.
The reason for the conflict was because Management decided that this was a serious offense and they felt that my behavior seriously interfered with the organization’s operation. (Stephen P. Robbins) Another major reason for this conflict was caused by politicking which is “[an] action[s] one can take to influence the distribution of advantages and disadvantages within the organization”. (D. A. Stephen P. Robbins) The owner of the dog was very influential politically with the Postmaster of Denver and had very close family and friends in the legal community.
The conflict resolution styles used by management in this case is called forcing which is “[an attempt] to satisfy one’s needs at the expense of the other party”. (D. A. Stephen P. Robbins, What Resolution Techniques Can You Use? ) I would have preferred to use a collaboration style which is characterized by open and honest discussions by both parties, intensive listening to understand the differences to identify a mutual agreement and careful deliberation to find a solution that would have advantageous to all. (D. A. Stephen P. Robbins, What Resolution Techniques Can You Use? ) Unfortunately this was not possible management was interested in achieving any of these objectives, they simply wanted a quick solution which did not include listening to my side of the story. The conflict resolution technique that I employed was one of compromise which involved the union that I was a part of since 1989. This approach to conflict “require[d] each party to give up something of value”. (D. A. Stephen P. Robbins, What Resolution Techniques Can You Use? ) This would involve some compromise on the part of management as they were unrelenting with their discipline maneuver of severe punishment.
The results of using this conflict resolution style resulted in a negative consequence for me as a letter carrier of 18 years and 10 months and as Postal Employee of 23 years and 5 months. Factors that were not taken into consideration were that I had an excellent attendance record and no disciplinary record on file, this discipline was also not “reasonable in relation to the offense involved”. (D. A. Stephen P. Robbins, What About The Law? ) The result of this action was one of wrongful discharge which specifically means “[the] improper or unjust termination of an employee”. (D. A. Stephen P. Robbins, What About The Law? ) The end result of this conflict dispute also violated the union’s own contract agreement which states that punishment should be corrective in nature and not punitive. The discipline issued by the United States Postal Service was not fair and consistent with what other employees received during the same time period and in past cases employee behavior was even more severe than mine. For example, in one instance a letter carrier clocked out and shot and killed a dog and he did not lose his job. Another case in Denver an employee physically struck a supervisor and he is still working. Apparently my actions of striking an attacking dog with a shovel to defend myself were of a worse nature. Extenuating circumstances that the dog was not even hit hard, and the animal is in excellent health as of this writing were not even taken into consideration. This approach and use of a forcing technique apparently works well for the United States Postal Service and in this conflict resolution instance it worked well for them.
I believe that an alternate approach to the Postal Services’ conflict resolution cases should be conducted differently. The current approach wastes company time and money in using the forcing process. In past contract agreements the National Association of Letter Carriers and the United States Postal Service have agreed on using a dispute resolution process that does not require the grievant to be present during key meetings which concern the Postal employee’s career. I believe this causes a communication barrier and pertinent information to particular employee’s cases especially background information to make the situation clearer for an arbitrator agent present at these meetings. At present there is more of an effort to get through as many cases as possible because of the enormity of them and the end result is bad decisions. My solution to this problem would be to restructure the entire process of handling disputes at the lowest level to prevent them from turning into a major conflict which waste company time and money. Changing the low level management’s style of forcing into collaboration would open lines of communication for both parties to reach a win-win situation. (D. A. Stephen P. Robbins, What Resolution Techniques Can You Use? ) Collaboration does not work for all situations however especially when pressures or particular situations are more severe. A compromise approach would work best with interpersonal conflicts. If I had a choice I would have used a collaboration style of conflict management. I believe that my situation was “too important to be compromised”. (D. A. Stephen P. Robbins, What Resolution Techniques Can You Use? )
Sitting behind a desk and writing discipline for each and every instance that occurs in the Postal Service that is not to the liking of management is one of the reasons why the United States Postal Service is in such a tight financial bind right now. The culture of management needs to change in a tight fisted bureaucratic vertical level organizational hierarchy for any positive results to occur.
I also believe that employees would be more open to change their conflict resolution styles and adapt according to the conflicts that occur to reduce stress on the workroom floor. This needs a collaborative effort on the part of management which would require them to retire their ink pens for a few moments and practice listening techniques to resolve problems initially before they get out of hand. This also means that there has to be trust established between management and employees before pro-active attitudes are established. The improper use of conflict resolution techniques stymies innovation and employee solutions to reduce costs. A stagnated immobile work force affects the bottom line while organizational goals are diffused. Negotiation skills need to be tuned into problems not personalities especially in this dynamic diverse work force of today.
Works Cited
Stephen P. Robbins, David A. Decenzo. "The Diciplinary Process ." Stephen P. Robbins, David A. Decenzo. Supervision Today! . Upper Saddle River : Prentice Hall , 2010. 355.
Stephen P. Robbins, David A. DeCenzo. "Understanding Organizational Politics ." Stephen P. Robbins, David A. DeCenzo. Supervison Today! . Upper Saddle River : Prentice Hall , 2010. 351.
Stephen P. Robbins, David A. DeCenzo. "What About The Law? ." Stephen P. Robbins, David A. DeCenzo. Supervison Today! . Upper Saddle River : Prentice Hall , 2010. 359.
Stephen P. Robbins, David A. DeCenzo. "What Resolution Techniques Can You Use? ." Stephen P. Robbins, David A. DeCenzo. Supervision Today! . Upper Saddle River : Prentice Hall , 2010. 347.
No comments:
Post a Comment