I need a 150-word reply to forums 1 & 2(forum post by classmates) and a 300 word reply to each of forums 3 & 4 (main forum in a new week):
Forum #1[1]
The machine tool company conflict is a case of intergroup conflict, where the owner in this case represents management, and his employees represent the opposing group. The 35 highly skilled employees are all members of a union, which also connects them as a sub-group, and sets the tone for a ‘them vs. us’ approach to a legitimate problem that the company is facing. As stated in Organizational Behavior, cohesiveness can be a bad thing when ‘groupthink’ occurs, and critical thinking gets pushed aside (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2013, p 374). Correct critical thinking would allow for a pragmatic evaluation of the reality of the economic downturn, which is the real cause of the problem, not management.
The owner has presented a functional conflict solution which yields a win-win result, but apparently is being resisted by his union employees. Using a Third Party Intervention might prove successful in this conflict, given both sides have made their case, and are locked in opposition. Alternative dispute resolution (ADR), incorporating a mediation technique (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2013, p383), would allow the employees to actually listen to the options that would facilitate preserving their jobs rather than experiencing the more detrimental alternative of layoffs. Clearly, groupthink is at work in the union employees group, which is hindering the process of successful negotiations. Avoiding a win-lose outcome is crucial to maintaining a positive and continued relationship.
The challenges to effective communication include the apparent unethical approach to negotiation brought in by the union and its legal representation. Ethical negotiations would require the union to abandon their distributive, one-sided solution demand, in favor of an integrative negotiation approach, which would call for a progressive win-win strategy (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2013, p385). In addition, the shouting, name calling, and profanity prevent a rational exchange of understanding. This also represents the inability to listen with understanding, or being able to see and understand the opposing point of view.
Because evidence-based decision making (EBDM) is based on using real and available data, which are both available in this case, this process would be helpful in resolving this situation. Accordingly, the 5 steps of evidence-based decision-making, are apparent in the dilemma scenario being discussed. Step 1, identifies the problem as the economic downturn; step 2 identifies the sharp decline in business based on implied internally gathered evidence and data; step 3 projects the external analysis rendering a worsening of conditions; step 4 identifies accountant data that reflects the stakeholder’s (owner) interest. All of this along with additional external data suggesting disgruntled union workers, without regard to a previously harmonious relationship, leads to step 5, integrating and appraising all data to make a necessary decision (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2013, p 338).
