Options for Solving Conflict

Successful conflict and negotiation in organizational behavior relies on

using different techniques to resolve difficult situations. Business owners
might follow a few steps when processing discussion options and
solutions: identifying the problem, analyzing the issue, creating different
strategies or approaches, and acting on outcomes or ideas. These steps
provide a logical process to follow when solving conflict and negotiation
issues.
Conflict Negotiation With Others

Business owners can use conflict negotiation to create a more

favorable outcome when dealing with a stronger party. Small
businesses often have lower purchasing power or negotiating positions
than larger organizations. Lower purchasing power often drives
business owners to create the best situations for saving their company
money while improving product quality and production output.

Business owners ought to use negotiation to create relationships that

provide their company with a competitive advantage over other
businesses in the economic marketplace.
It's a Two-Way Street

Many business owners realize they cannot obtain all their requests during
a conflict and negotiation process. Having a best alternative to
negotiated agreement on hand ensures business owners receive as many
concessions as possible during the negotiation process.

However, these alternatives might create more conflict if they continually

require the other party to give up more benefits. You can suggest
win/win scenarios by putting yourself in your opponent's shoes,
recommends the Harvard Business Review, and trying to learn what they
want.
Watch for Unethical Behavior

The conflict and negotiation process can result in one party engaging in
unethical tactics. Small business owners may get caught up in this
situation if they have little experience in conflict and negotiation. They
must have the resolve to walk away from conflicts or negotiations that
will result in unfavorable conditions for their company. Refusing to
negotiate or reconcile conflicts can be difficult for small businesses
looking to improve or advance business operations.
Conflict Management

Conflicts are inevitable when a number of people will be working together.

Conflict is defined as a “difference in opinion or some kind of disagreement
between two or more parties”. Conflicts need to be resolved effectively. It is
not only important to resolve the conflict, but also is equally important to
ensure that the parties involved in conflict do not unnecessarily end up
being in any kind of emotional stress during the resolution process of the
conflict. Striking a balance between resolving the conflict to find the
decision and maintaining the emotional well-being of the people involved
will be critical to successful conflict management.
Some of the conflict resolution techniques are as follows:

1. Problem Solving / Collaboration / Confronting

In this method, people involved in the conflict or having a difference in opinion, come
forward to discuss the problem at hand with a very open mind. They focus on resolving
the conflict and finding the best alternative/solution for the team. They discuss rising
above personal emotions with the sole intention to finding what is best for the team.
This leads to a win-win kind of outcome. Here everyone collaborates.

2. Compromising/Reconciling
Sometimes for certain conflicts, there will be a need for the involved parties to think of a
middle path wherein both parties decide to give up something and identify a resolution.
This kind of solution will be temporary for that moment and are not a long-lasting
solution. This leads to a lose-lose kind of outcome as both parties may feel they have
lost something.
3. Withdrawing/Avoiding
In some situations, one of the parties in the conflict may decide to retract from the discussion and allows going
with the other person’s opinion. Or some situations, one of the parties may decide to completely avoid the
conflict by maintaining silence. This works well in situations where one of the parties in the conflict is
emotionally charged up or is angry. Hence avoiding any conflict resolution provides a “cooling off” period for the
people involved so that they can later come back for meaningful resolution.

4. Forcing/Competing
In some situations, a person with authority and power can force his/her opinion and resolves the conflict
without giving any chance to the other party/person. This leads to a win-lose kind of outcome. Someone may
end up feeling like a loser while the other person with authority may feel as a winner. This technique can be
used if we see that conflicts are unnecessary and destructive for the team.

5. Smoothing/Accommodating
This is a technique that is used when the atmosphere seems to be filled with apprehension/distrust among the
parties involved. And no one is coming forward for resolving the conflict. In these kinds of scenarios, one of the
parties can take charge and tries to smooth the surrounding by using nice words and by emphasizing the points
of agreement, and playing down the points of disagreement. This can work as a catalyst to break the discomfort
between the involved parties by creating a feeling of trust and encouraging them to come forward and resolve
the conflict.
Centralization and Decentralization are two modes of working
in any organization. In centralization, there is a hierarchy of
formal authority for making all the important decision for the
organization.

And in decentralization decision making is left for the lower

level of organization. Let us learn the difference between
centralization and decentralization in detail with their
advantages and other factors.
Centralization and Decentralization

A simple way to understand if an organization is working in a centralized or decentralized manner is by

looking at two important aspects:

The place of the decision-making authority in the hierarchy of the management i.e. Centralized.
The degree of decision-making power at the lower echelons in the organization i.e. Decentralized.
Decentralization

An organization has a greater degree of decentralization if the number of decisions made and functions
affected at the lower level are higher.

Further, while decentralization and delegation of authority might seem similar, you must not confuse
one with another. A decentralized way of working is more about the philosophy of the organization.

Unlike delegation, it is not just about handing over a part of the authority to a subordinate but a way
of approaching the decision-making process in the organization.

Decentralization is a choice, while delegation is a must. Let’s take a quick look at the advantages of
centralization and decentralization:
Advantages of Centralization

The organization can strictly enforce uniformity of procedures and

policies.
It can help in the elimination of overlapping or duplicate activities
and save costs.
The organization has a better chance of utilizing the potential of its
outstanding employees.
It offers a better control over the activities of the organization by
ensuring consistency in operations and uniformity in decision-making.
Advantages of Decentralization

Faster decision-making and better quality of decisions

Improves the effectivity of managers.
Offers a democratic environment where employees can have a say in
their governance.
Provides good exposure to mid and lower-level managers and creates a
pool of promotable manpower with managerial skills.
Since managers can see the results of their own actions, they are
more driven and have improved morales.
Both centralization and decentralization have their own advantages and
disadvantages. Even if an organization is working in a decentralized
manner, some functions are usually centralized. Next, let’s look at the
factors that determine the degree of decentralization.
Organizational Change
The art of progress is to preserve order amid
change and to preserve change amid order.
The problem is, no one likes change.
Organizations and their managers have to learn how to anticipate and
implement change effectively. Managers need to find ways to overcome
their employees’ natural aversion to change, because managing change
effectively can mean the difference between staying in business and
becoming irrelevant to their customers. The first step in managing change
effectively is to understand what change is and where it comes from.

Organizational change is the transformation or adjustment to the way an

organization functions. Organizations adjust to small changes all the time,
possibly looking to improve productivity, responding to a new regulation,
hiring a new employee, or something similar. But on top of these little
adjustments we make at work all the time, there are larger pressures that
loom over us, like competition, technology, or customer demands. Those
larger pressures sometimes require larger responses.
What forces create these changes?

External forces are those changes that are part of an organization’s general and business
environment. There are several kinds of external forces an organization might face:

1. Demographic. A changing work demographic might require an organizational change in

culture. For instance, Avon built and grew their business around door-to-door cosmetic sales,
with the stay-at-home wife and mother as their primary front line employee. When more women
entered the workforce in 9-to-5 jobs, Avon had to shift gears and find new ways to get their
products in front of their customers.

2. Social. Changing social trends can pressure organizations into making changes. Consumers
are becoming more environmentally conscious, a trend which has pushed fast food restaurants
to replace Styrofoam containers with paper. Manufacturers of cleaning products changed
product formulas to omit phosphorus and other environmentally threatening chemicals. Tobacco
companies have buckled under the changing image of smokers, the dangers of their products,
and some have started looking into eCigarettes and other smoking alternatives to stay in
business.
3. Political. Government restrictions often force change onto organizations.
This can be something as simple as a change in minimum wage for employees,
or as complex as rules and restrictions governing fair competition in business.
For instance, when the Affordable Health Care act was put into place,
businesses had to change their operations and put steps into place to confirm
that all employees had healthcare coverage to comply with the new law.

4. Technology. Still have your VHS player? The founder of Blockbuster wishes
you did. Technological changes can make or break a business. Whether new
technology is introduced industry-wide, as when the laser was introduced to
modern medicine, making surgeries easier and safer; or when it’s introduced to
end users, as when consumers stopped renting videos to enjoy the cheaper,
more convenient streaming services like Netflix, organizations must change to
accommodate new technologies or suffer the consequences.
5. Economic. During the 2008 recession, consumers lost their jobs and cut
back on their spending. These economic downturns had a major impact on
businesses. Banks failed. General Motors and Chrysler filed for bankruptcy.
Survival meant adapting to change. Companies like Lego, who experienced
stagnant U.S. sales during this time, took the opportunity to build their markets
in Europe and Asia. Netflix realized the potential of providing in-home
entertainment to families that had cut back their entertainment budgets and
grew their subscriptions by 3 million subscribers in 2009 alone. Meanwhile, in
the midst of spiking fuel prices, gas guzzling Hummers were no longer en vogue
and were discontinued.

Companies can also experience internal forces of change, which can often be
related to external forces, but are significant enough to be considered separately.
Internal forces of change arise from inside the organization and relate to the
internal functioning of the organization. They might include low performance,
low satisfaction, conflict, or the introduction of a new mission, new leadership.
Approaches to Culture Change: What Works

You can’t “do” culture change to your organization. Culture arises

from the beliefs and underlying assumptions held by the people in
the organization. Trying to change culture by decree or through
training programs won’t affect people’s beliefs.
One way to change the culture is to fire a lot of people. That really
shakes things up and gets change going – especially if you replace
them with new people who come in with a different attitude about
the company and the work.
If that doesn’t appeal to you, the only way to quickly and effectively
change the culture is to involve the people you want to change in
designing and implementing the change effort.
Where To Start

First, senior leadership must be aligned and truly supportive of the

change, not just with lip service. They must look at their own
behavior and whether they are modeling the new values. People
watch what you do more closely than they listen to what you say.
But you don’t have to wait until the leadership transformation is
completed. It’s possible to begin the organizational involvement while
the leaders are still working on alignment if there is a sincere
commitment at the top.
Three Involvement Approaches

1. Vertical: Cascade top-down

Top Down

This is the typical approach. Each leader on the leadership team drives the change through their own
part of the organization. The leadership team monitors progress of the entire enterprise.

Pros:

– Leaders visibly drive the change.

– Specific changes can easily be tailored for each part of the business.

Cons:

– Difficulty with coordinated efforts and consistent messages.

– Especially difficult in matrix environments where people have multiple reporting relationships.

– This is a hierarchical process and might be at odds with the new desired culture.
2. Cross-company

Horizontal

People from across the company come together for a series of meetings to learn about the intended
changes and to get their ideas. Often these take a “town meeting” format. However, if these meetings
are simply used for one-way communication, where the leaders explain and answer questions, the
change effort becomes an ineffective variation of “change by decree.”

Pros:

– Opportunity to quickly collect diverse perspectives.

– Consistent messages across the organization.

Cons:

– It takes more time to make decisions on implementation. Momentum can get lost and people might
not see the connection between their recommendations and the decisions that are made.

– Tempting to leaders to hand off to HR or a project manager.

3. Large group slice

Slice

A significant slice of the organization, representing all levels and functions, comes together
for a collaborative change meeting where roadblocks are surfaced and analyzed and
decisions are made in real time during the meeting. The meeting is designed by a team that
is a microcosm of the group that will be attending the meeting. This approach requires that
leaders are aligned and able to work together as a team to make good decisions quickly.

Pros:

– Leaders visibly support and model the new culture.

– The fastest and most effective way to implement change.

Cons:

– Requires the investment and commitment of senior leaders.

– Requires having faith in the people and willingness to let go of control.

Which Approach is Best?

The best approach for your organization depends on

many factors including your resources, timeframe and
the type of change effort you want to implement.
Set up a “change team” that is representative of your
organization to design and facilitate the change process.
However, remember it is important for senior leaders to
be visible champions and drivers of the change effort. If
there’s a disconnect, your change effort will fail before
it starts.
THE MESSAGE OF JESUS: WHY WERE YOU BORN?
You were born for a purpose! God created each of us for a reason—and we are
happiest when we are living in harmony with the purpose he has given us. You
need to know what it is.
Many people have no idea what life is all about. They live, and they die, searching
for some kind of meaning, wondering whether their lives have purpose—where they
fit, whether they really matter in the grand scheme of things. They may have put
together the finest bottle collection in world, or they may have been voted “most
popular” in high school, but all too soon, youthful plans and dreams evaporate into
anxiety and frustration over missed opportunities, failed relationships or countless
other “if-onlys” and “might-have-beens.”
Many people lead empty, unfulfilled lives, lacking in solid purpose and meaning
beyond the short-lived gratification of money, sex, power, respect or popularity,
none of which means anything, especially when the darkness of death approaches.
But life could be much more than this, because God offers each of us much more.
He offers us true significance and purpose—the joy of being what he created us to
be.
What does it mean to gain the whole world but lose your soul?

In Matthew 16, Jesus asks what good it is for a man to gain the whole world but
lose his soul (Matthew 16:26). To gain the whole world is to receive all the world
has to offer—money, fame, pleasure, power, prestige, etc. To lose one’s soul is to
die without a right relationship with Christ and spend an eternity in the lake of fire.

In the context of His rhetorical question, the Lord was predicting His suffering and
death and resurrection (Matthew 16:21). When Peter resisted His teaching, Jesus
rebuked him and said, “You do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely
human concerns” (verse 23). Jesus then spoke to the crowd and reminded them
that there was nothing worth more than one’s own eternal soul. Rejecting Christ
might mean temporary, earthly gains, but it comes at the worst possible price.
 "You are braver than you
believe, stronger than you seem,
and smarter than you think.“

THANK YOU!
GOD BLESS YOU FUTURE
LEADERS!!!!!