Conflict Resolution in Hospiral

Conflict Resolution at General Hospital

Conflicts are bound to pop up whenever two or more humans are involved in any form of contact. Conflict arises when two or more people are engaged in a common task but driven by different interests. One of the common places where conflicts keep emerging is in the cooperate world. At the general Hospital is one of such conflicts that has emerged and therefore, it is necessary to take a conflict resolution procedure. In such a period of conflict, a conflict resolution ought to be called to settle the issue. It is important to note that in the process of conflict resolution, regardless of the conflict resolution method chosen, each party involved need to understand that it is bound to for go an amount of its interest in order to reach a resolution.

The Conflict

The General Hospital founded in 1968 has operated well through the years but some issues have risen recently. Hammer, the General Hospital CEO has had to take measures to settle the issues arising. It was alleged that the Hospital was operating at high costs. In efforts to curb and cover for the rising costs, the hospital increased its fees charged to customers. Upon the increase of customer fees, the hospital patient occupancy dropped drastically by at least 35%. Hammer, the company CEO tried his methods to solve the crisis which failed. Due to the mounting pressure of undesirable operation of the hospital, the Hospital CEO had to take yet another step I ensuring that the Hospitals does not loose its vision and reputation of existence. In this view, Hammer hired the services of a Chief Operations Officer (COO) Ms. Harding.

As it is expected, any newly hired officer especially in the executive of management brings radical change to prove of his or her competence as well as mark a new beginning. Ms. Harding was not in any way different. Upon her entry into the organization, she made instant changes in the hospital which only seem to have caused more of chaos. Ms. Harding and Hammer the CEO’s strategy at this level was to play the “good cop-bad cop” trick to coerce the physicians and make them feel the power of authority.

To begin with, Ms. Harding, the COO identified that physicians in the hospital were scooping a huge amount of salary which drove the hospital costs too high. In her initial steps to cut down on the physician’s salary docket, she computerized the EKG reading. She then fired the cardiologist who had been manually reading the EKG results. The cardiologist has been being paid highly and even taking flights to her holiday at the cost of the hospital. By this move, Ms. Harding projected that the company would save $100,000 annually.

However, the plan did not seem to work as within one week of operation of the machine, the machine as said to be reading at least 25% of all the EKG results given wrongly. The physicians have complained about this but their cries seem to be falling on deaf ears as Hammer and Harding have chosen to stick to the computerized EKG reader. For these reasons, the physicians working in the hospital have been filled with fury and indeed, there is a serious need for conflict resolution.

The Conflict Management Styles in the Case

In order to solve the existing conflict in this case, there are several conflict management styles that have been used (Piepenburg 2011).

• First of all, when hammer worked as the sole operations officer, he used the collaborating style to solve issues. In this method, the leader or authority in charge takes to meet the team he is working with to discuss on the issue at hand. The leader lets the team be involved in the decision making process. The collaborating style of conflict management is largely applicable where the team at hand has considerable experience within the workplace and therefore can be trusted to provide sound insight in addressing the issues at hand.
• A second style is seen when Hammers brings in Harding to help in solving the hospital’s operation issues. As mentioned earlier, the duo uses a “bad cop-good cop” trick to enforce their strategies. This is called the forcing style of conflict management. In this strategy, the team is forced by authority to follow the leadership’s opinion without necessarily consulting the team members. This strategy seemingly plays the “hard ruler” who only dictates what he or she feels is right and most suitable to settle a case. The strategy compromises the working relationship that exists between management and the workforce. Therefore, the steps taken by Hammer together with Ms. Harding did no better than just make the conflict in the hospital worse.
• Third and last, is the avoiding style which Hammer and Harding have resolved to use after the physicians got furious about the firing of one of them as well as the unreliable use of the computerized EKG reader. Hammer and Harding have chosen to go silent on the grievances being raised by the workers. This is a failing style because it makes a leader appear uncaring and inhuman. The method alienates the workforce from management.

How General Hospital Can Use Teams to Address the Cost Reductions

A good way for Hammer to resolve the conflict in the general hospital is by using the team. By addressing the issues as a team, the management together with the workforce develops common goals and objectives. Each member of the team is then obliged with a responsibility to play their role in ensuring that the set objectives are attained (Mohan 2006). In the team spirit, information is communicated and each member is expected to be understanding of prevailing circumstances. In the team, members express positive expectations of others and credit is publicly given to exemplary performance from. In this way, each member of the team feels encouraged and motivated. In this view, team is a sure way to address the conflict in the General Hospital.

How Hammer Can Use Negotiation Skills

To bring the alleged conflict to resolution through teams, Hammer needs to take up negotiation. Since it appears that the conflict existing in General Hospital is driven by personal interests of the organization workers, it is necessary that a negotiation be initiated to ensure that a deal which provides a win-win situation for parties involved is reached. Since the hospital is a place where relationship between employees and management is expected to run for a long time, then the best strategy to use for negotiation is the honest and openness approach. Through this approach, each party is meant to come to an understanding leading to a mutual agreement to end the conflict (Johann 2008).

A Strategy to Resolve the Problem

The efforts that were initially taken by management to address the existing conflict failed. A better strategy would be to begin by reviewing all hospital expenses and costs and not just employee salaries. Second, the newly employed COO should put away personal interest to becoming CEO and purpose to serve to the benefit of the hospital as a whole. Third, there is need to review the services of the computerized EKG interpreter and consider technical advice in the credibility of the new technology. Moreover, the executive management should consider involving the employees in solving the issue, since avoiding them only alienates the team from management, an undesirable situation. By observing the recommendations of the paper, General Hospital under the leadership of Hammer and Harding will sure resolve the existing conflict in its operations.

Conflict Management Essay Introduction

The word conflict is typically used to refer to identified incongruities ensuing normally from some form of intrusion or antagonism. Conflict management, subsequently, is the application of approaches to deal with these apparent diversities in a constructive way. For a long period, managers had been trained to look at conflict in a negative light. Yet, conflict may be either positive or negative. While negative conflict is destructive and leads to reduced efficiency, positive conflict in reality may promote better work effort and aid in the performance of individual duties. Borisoff and Victor (1998) posited that companies have come to be aware of and to recognize the advantages that dealing with conflict gives. Due to our personal disparities, we correspond, we are confronted, and we are motivated to look for ingenious answers to our conflicts.

As a manager in a medium security firm, I have come to realize that there are several factors that may create organizational conflict in the security industry. According to Jehn (2003), scarce Resources are a major source of conflict in organizations. In the security industry, these resources include funds, equipment, personnel, or information. Frequently in the security firm, organizations departments are competing for limited or waning resources. This results into a situation where conflict is unavoidable.

Another source of conflict in the security industry is jurisdictional vagueness. Where duty limits and task responsibilities are ambiguous, conflict is to be expected. People will differ about who is accountable for duties and available resources. Another source that is general in most organizations is personality differences. A conflict comes out when two or more individuals simply do not agree or have differing ways of seeing things.

These differences result from differences in personal character, outlooks, principles, and viewpoints. Power and rank discrepancies are also a source of conflict in security agencies. The conflict results from an individual having perceived dubious power over others or another. Individuals may also take part in conflicts with the aim of enhancing their power or status in any security firm. I have also come to learn that conflict arise for the reason that individuals might be in pursuit of dissimilar objectives. Finally, the major source of conflict, not only in security firms but also in all companies is Communication failure. Communication-based difficulties often warp communication leading to misperceptions and misapprehensions that might lead to long-lasting conflict.

In our firm, interdependence is high. Individuals or departments must rely on contributions from other individuals and departments to achieve the goals. As such, jurisdictional conflicts alongside others are inevitable. For the reason that personnel are always dependent on each other to be efficient, conflict within our security firm is almost natural. When this conflict emerges the management and the people involved classify the grounds of the conflict, scrutinize the consequences of the conflict, and deal with the conflicts based on the information gathered. We employ a number of conflict management styles in our security firm.

Conflict Resolution Approach Methods

1. The first approach that is used is avoiding conflict resolution approach. This approach is short on both boldness and cooperativeness. The manager is neither assertively pursuing their favored result in the conflict nor is he or she supportive in aiding the differing individuals to sought their differences. The problem or conflict is never directly tackled or dealt with appropriately. The firm employs this method is used where the management considers the conflict petty. It is apt when there is no chance of resolving issues or inn situations where interference would come at a high price.
2. Furthermore, people employ competing conflict resolution approach. This method is commonly referred to as the win-lose style. The management encourages this approach in a situation where there is a need for a party involved to come out as highly firm and needs to arrive at a preferred goal in their favored way even when it means at the expense of some individuals. This style is suitable in situations where speedy significant action is required, for example, at times of emergencies. The management also uses this method to deal with unpopular decision for instance imperative cost cutting.
3. The third approach in our security firm is the accommodating conflict resolution method. This approach is a reflection of a high scale of cooperativeness. When there is a conflict, the manager in charge of its resolution overcomes his or her objectives, aims, and preferred upshots and lets the conflicting parties realize their own objectives, aims, and preferred upshots. The management encourages this approach in situations where the manager realizes that the conflicting parties have realized that they are at fault or in instances where the problem in question is more essential to one party than it is to the other party. This approach in conflict resolution is more fitting when the management wants to safeguard future relations between the conflicting parties.
4. The fourth approach used in this security firm is the compromising conflict resolution method. When employing this method the conflicting parties are typified by modest degree of assertiveness and cooperativeness. This approach can be referred to as bargaining or horse-trading. It usually generates a sub-optimal outcome. This method is suitable when the problem is of importance to the two or more parties involved in the conflict or when it is essential to find a provisional, well-timed solution. The security firm never employs this approach when there is an intricate issue that requires a problem-solving method.
5. The final method that our firm employs is the collaborating conflict resolution approach. This method is both highly assertive and cooperative. It is regularly expressed as the win-win situation (Shelton and Darling, 2004). The management engages both parties in resourcefully working towards attaining their own objectives, aims, and preferred upshots. The firm employs the approach where the issue in question is compound, and an ingenious or original amalgamation of ideas is necessary. This approach requires a lot of time.

In conclusion, on a personal level, I prefer to use an approach that is relevant to the conflict in question. Conflict management is an ongoing procedure. According to Borisoff and Victor (1998), conflict resolution involves constant communication and management. It is not a static process, as such; it is a practice that necessitates flexibility and regular assessment to really be useful and efficient. Our security firm approach is in line with my personal conflict management preference.