You will hear a lecturer discussing the causes and management of conflict in the workplace.
First, you have some time to look at questions 31 to 40.
Now listen carefully and answer questions 31 to 40.
Conflicts are now much better, conflict remains common in organizations, and modern human resources managers must know how to handle it.
So what counts as workplace conflict?
Definitions differ, but I use the term for a broad range of conduct that a victim considers unacceptable.
It can extend from relatively minor, harmless disputes to physical violence.
A large proportion falls under the general heading of bullying.
By that, I mean one or more people acting aggressively or abusively toward somebody in a weaker position.
Every instance of bullying is conflict, although workplace conflict is not always bullying.
As with other forms of human behavior, there are many possible causes.
Frequently, a person wants to demonstrate superiority over somebody else because doing so reassures them that they are not at the bottom of a social or organizational hierarchy.
Sometimes, two individuals simply dislike each other because their personalities are incompatible.
An employee who is habitually optimistic, for example, may have little patience with a colleague who is continually pessimistic.
Naturally, that still doesn't excuse poor treatment.
A further type develops when employees care more about advancing themselves and their own team than about the organization as a whole.
These are known as structural conflicts.
They might occur when a sales department believes it alone contributes useful work and consequently looks down on administrative staff who operate behind the scenes.
Conflict clearly harms the people involved.
Victims may experience severe stress, leading to an absence from work that can continue for several months.
If the company makes no attempt to intervene, the dispute may grow uncontrollably and, in an extreme case, contribute to the organization's collapse.
Research involving chief executives, or CEOs, has revealed why some treat colleagues badly.
Many display two, apparently opposite, characteristics.
Strong confidence in their capacity to achieve important results, together with considerable anxiety about failing to meet targets set by themselves or by company directors.
This combination may cause them to react badly when anyone challenges a decision.
In a high-pressure workplace, those characteristics create particular difficulties.
The problem becomes more serious when colleagues, managers, and board members each pursue different visions.
If they cannot agree on strategy or on the future direction of the business, substantial conflict follows.
Lower-level managers might assume that an autocratic organization, in which the CEO issues instructions and everybody else obeys, generates the most conflict.
Interestingly, a more democratic structure may experience greater difficulties.
Uncertainty about whom employees report to can result in contradictory demands.
Let's now consider how damaging conflict can be reduced.
Preventing it from arising is obviously the ideal.
A capable manager at any level will work to earn the respect of colleagues, especially direct reports.
This means communicating politely and treating employees as equals whose organizational roles happen to differ.
Conflict does sometimes occur and may become unmanageable.
Human resources will often intervene.
However, one party may view that department merely as the chief executive's spokesperson.
In that situation, an independent person from outside the organization can act as a mediator.
By speaking with both sides, establishing what occurred, and presenting an impartial account, this person may offer feedback that each party accepts precisely because it comes from outside the company.
