There was a value conflict between the staff and the management at the workplace. The management wanted the staff to work for six days a week. One of the employees was a Muslim, and the second employee was a Seventh-Day Adventist. Muslims have different prayers at different times, including the Subuh at dawn, Asr in the late afternoon, and Maghrib in the afternoon. Otherwise, Muslims dedicate their Fridays to prayers. The Seventh-day Adventists pray on Saturdays. The conflict between the management and these two employees emanated from the defiance of these employees to work on these days. Whereas the employees wanted to be freed on Friday and Saturday for Muslims and the Seventh Day Adventists, the management never wanted to grant them their request. Therefore, a value conflict erupted between these two groups in the workplace.
In addressing this conflict, the specific preparations included capturing the warring parties’ views and ideas, reviewing the workplace’s rules and policies, identifying the best practices across the world, and bringing the warring parties to the negotiating table. These specific preparations have been crucial in handling the changes, implementing the best steps and processes used in different companies, and identifying the problems and solving these conflicts (Backus et al., 2020). Handling the conflicts has been important in managing the key outcomes, and this has also been developing systems that can handle the problems (Park et al., 2019). Addressing the conflict should have included a neutral party that can be connected to solving the problems. Therefore, the problems identified in this conflict can better be mediated by a third and neutral party.
The main activities that should have been done to best prepare for the mediation include holding joint sessions between the two groups. Joint sessions remain critical in creating a good rapport and building connections between the warring groups (Park et al., 2019). Holding sessions also help in easing the tensions that can exist between these different parties. The sessions are also critical in creating a system that can connect the individuals, which has also been crucial in bargaining at the workplace. Therefore, proper preparation and planning would create a working environment for the bargaining and negotiation between the two parties at the workplace.
The bargaining process involved looking for an alternative to their working arrangement. The Muslim employee proposed that Friday be left for him to attend prayers, and the changes should be compensated based on different hours. Seventh-Day Adventist employees also made a similar proposal. According to the Seventh Day Adventist, Saturday should be his day of praying and should be let to rest. However, the manager refused to grant them their requests. The manager maintained that the two employees knew what they were signing for and that the company’s rules could not be bent to favour them. Bending the rules for these employees would not be acceptable and would also open a floodgate for other similar grievances necessitating the changes. From the two points, both these two employees and the management were right. Their arguments were accurate, and this also had an impact on understanding their actions and different activities.
The two sides, the employees and the management, did not get what they wanted. Two sides agreed to work for half a day on Friday and Saturday. The Muslim employee was to work for half a day on Friday, and the Seventh-Day Adventist also worked for half a day on Saturday. In negotiations, individuals attempt to reach a balance, and they also meet halfway. The two sides have worked on a compromise that can be crucial in building a system that is important and can be improved in the process. The negotiation did not resolve the question of time and when the half a day on Friday and Saturday would Start. Negotiations also should have addressed the problem of working for five days every week. Therefore, the negotiation would have an impact on developing systems and creating value systems.
One thing I recommend for resolving conflicts in the organization is developing caucuses. The caucuses would be important in creating important steps and developing the key outcome in managing the critical aspects of negotiation. Negotiations within the context of workplaces require critical steps that would remain important in connecting the warring parties. Recommendation of the caucus would be crucial in handling the problems and determining the changes among various individuals.
References
Backus, M., Blake, T., Pettus, J., & Tadelis, S. (2020). Communication and bargaining
Breakdown: An empirical analysis (No. w27984). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Park, J., Rahman, H. A., Suh, J., & Hussin, H. (2019). A study of the integrative bargaining model
With argumentation-based negotiation. Sustainability, 11(23), 6832.
write