Conflict Resolution

The organization that I will focus on in this analysis is a supplier of oilfield equipment. This particular location houses the manufacturing facility, the engineering department, and the administrative departments of the organization. The company is in the middle of a project tasked with performing a major upgrade to its machining tools and related software. This obviously involves some significant growing pains as the new equipment is brought online. The result is an almost totally new way of doing business. In the old way, equipment was typically expedited through, as the automatic systems were inefficient and unreliable to ensure on-time delivery. The new systems are based more on real-time data and expected to not require this expediting.

In this analysis, the players involved in the controversy are more groups of people than individuals. First of all, the manufacturing group is responsible for installation and implementation of the new equipment and systems. Secondly, the administrative group is responsible for interfacing with customers and ensuring that the equipment is delivered on time and under budget. Finally, the senior management group has invested millions of dollars in the upgrades and is responsible to the board of directors to show why the project was needed in the first place.

The problem can be described rather easily. The company has suffered severely with late equipment delivery over the past year. This coincides with replacement of the old tools with new ones. Senior management feels that the new tools are the solution to these problems in the long run, but in the short term, the problems have actually been worse. They are focused on long-term benefits, but are also sensitive to short-term problems.

The manufacturing group is under immense pressure to properly implement the new equipment and improve delivery. They feel that they cannot implement the new systems with business occurring as it did before, with orders being expedited by the administrative group.

The administrative group is under immense pressure to ensure on-time delivery of the equipment in the near-term. Historically this has been by any means necessary.

Lately, manufacturing has implemented some new policies in the name of safety to push the administrative department from the shops. They now require a "manufacturing escort" to even enter the shop. This is an obvious ploy to maintain control of its own environment. Also, the manufacturing group has been using the new systems as an excuse for not discussing ongoing problems. For example, if a question arises concerning production scheduling of a specific component, the manufacturing department will simply refer the questioner to "look at the system", even though both sides know that the system is currently inaccurate.

The main point of the conflict is that the company needs to determine a way to maintain short-term delivery in the midst of major changes in the way business is done. In the process, these two key departments must learn to work together to reach overall company goals. How can these two departments be brought together to work to a common goal? The administrative department feels powerless because they are being shut out, but are still being ultimately responsible for failure to deliver equipment in a timely fashion.

Therefore, the primary problems defined in this scenario are tending to short-term goals while changing the long-term methods at the company, and creating an environment in which two conflicting departments can work together for the good of the company. In this analysis, I will analyze these problems and use organizational theory to come to proposed solutions.

The problems that this company is experiencing are primarily related to organizational power. Before applying power theories to the company, let's look at the definition of power. Simply defined, power is the capacity to influence others, even when these others try to resist this influence. Although many factors determine who exerts power and who can defend against this influence, French and Raven's analysis of power bases emphasizes five sources of such power:

1. Reward power is the ability to mediate the distribution of positive or negative reinforcers. This power base is strongest when the rewards are valued, the group members depend on the power holder for the resource, and the power holder's promises seem credible.

2. Coercive power is the capacity to dispense punishments to those who do not comply with requests or demands.

3. Legitimate power stems from an authority's legitimate right to require and demand compliance.

4. Referent power is based on group members' identification with, attraction to, or respect for, the power holder. As with reference groups, group members gain a sense of intrinsic personal satisfaction from identification with the referent power holder. Charismatic leaders generally possess both legitimate and referent power.

5. Expert power derives from group members' assumption that the power holder possesses superior skills and abilities.

As we apply these theories to the company, we will find many types of tactics used frequently. Needless to say, there are direct and indirect consequences for both the target of the influence and the influencer. There can be many negative consequences when power is improperly used, including:

* Dislike and rejection

* Anger and reciprocal conflict

* Revolutionary coalitions

* Reactance

* Reductions in intrinsic motivation

* Self-blame

In fact, power incorrectly utilized typically results in a decreased attraction between the power individual and the follower and increased resistance. The better the power is used, the less it will produce resistance and decreased attraction. For example, French and Raven believe that "the strength of coercive power depends on the magnitude of the negative valence of the threatened punishment multiplied by the perceived probability that the person can avoid the punishment by conformity, i.e., the probability of punishment for nonconformity minus the probability of punishment for conformity."

At this company, power should be used more carefully. Currently, many kinds of power are used at the company, but none more than legitimate power. Clearly, no team trusts another team. No team respects the other team. Nobody is left to do his or her job without some kind of intervention. This trust must be built before the groups can work