Conflict is inimical to trust. However, trust is important to create a more enjoyable work environment: between the manager and the employees, and also among all employees as a group team. Actually, everyone needs trust. As mentioned by O’Neill (2002, Lecture 1), ‘we need [trust] because we have to be able to rely on others acting as they say that they will, and because we need others to accept that we will act as we say we will.’
Furthermore, research shows that conflict negatively influences trust, thus the management conflict approach is determinant upon trust within a team (Hempel, Zhang & Tjosvold 2009). Moreover, De Dreu (2008) highlighted the importance of trust within the team to aim for a better experience of conflict, while Hempel, Zhang and Tjosvold (2009) added that the cooperative management of conflict within a team contributes to developing trust. Furthermore, this perception of trust is described as the comfort to discuss issues, to rely upon each team member, and to solve future problems together. While competitiveness results in a win-lose situation, an absence of trust and the isolation of the members in an individual race for performance, research showed that cooperation demonstrates high team coordination and performance (Hempel, Zhang & Tjosvold 2009), two common standards of economic measurement. However, the literature does not relate the link between trust and accountability, which will be my purpose in the following.
23.6.10
21.6.10
Managers' Moral Accountability
Managers are accountable for encouraging a healthy environment and their behaviour largely determines the atmosphere at the workplace.
A position of authority must not allow a manager to use ‘forcing responses’ such as ‘I’m the boss, so we’ll do it my way’ (Carlopio & Andrewartha 2008, p. 344). The ‘forcing responses’ may be perceived by leaders as being strong and imposing, however Carlopio and Andrewartha (2008) described the consequence of this approach as producing resentments and lower morale. Additionally, O’Neill (2002, Lecture 3) mentioned the importance of being ‘intelligently accountable’ through ‘more attention to good governance and fewer fantasies about total control.’ Finally, as with the ‘forcing response’, all ‘competitive’ approaches lead to the frustration of the team members, a sensation of unfairness and denigration from the managers (Coetzer & Trimble 2010).
I will continue further arguing that, according to the Stephen Darwall’s concept of a ‘Second-Person Standpoint’ (2006), the ‘forcing response’ does not respect the ‘equal moral authority’ and instead involves the commanding of one party over another. Rather, the concept of ‘equal moral authority’ presents the idea to avoid two clans, ‘them’ and ‘me’, and oppositely, introduces the respect of ‘us’ allowing growth as a team. Furthermore, the cooperative approach is based in this respect of human being’s dignity to handle the conflict enquiring: ‘This is my position, what is yours?’, ‘How can we resolve it?’ (Carlopio & Andrewartha 2008, p. 347). In addition, according to Coetzer and Trimble (2010, p. 25), the election of a conflict management approach corresponds to a ‘high or low concern for self with high or low concern for others’. Therefore, a high concern for self and others will lead to a cooperative style which intends to satisfy the needs of all parties, respecting their dignity.
Carlopio and Andrewartha (2008, p. 352) cite research concluding that the ‘forcing response’ is the most common way to manage conflict. This approach aims to ‘get my way’ and to remove dignity from the employees, leaving them with feelings of defeat and humiliation. In the context that the ‘forcing response’ is the most common approach, I may conclude that the use of a cooperative approach would introduce a change of culture in the relations between managers and employees, a welcome for a mutual ‘visit’ to each other’s thoughts, interests, and preoccupations.
A position of authority must not allow a manager to use ‘forcing responses’ such as ‘I’m the boss, so we’ll do it my way’ (Carlopio & Andrewartha 2008, p. 344). The ‘forcing responses’ may be perceived by leaders as being strong and imposing, however Carlopio and Andrewartha (2008) described the consequence of this approach as producing resentments and lower morale. Additionally, O’Neill (2002, Lecture 3) mentioned the importance of being ‘intelligently accountable’ through ‘more attention to good governance and fewer fantasies about total control.’ Finally, as with the ‘forcing response’, all ‘competitive’ approaches lead to the frustration of the team members, a sensation of unfairness and denigration from the managers (Coetzer & Trimble 2010).
I will continue further arguing that, according to the Stephen Darwall’s concept of a ‘Second-Person Standpoint’ (2006), the ‘forcing response’ does not respect the ‘equal moral authority’ and instead involves the commanding of one party over another. Rather, the concept of ‘equal moral authority’ presents the idea to avoid two clans, ‘them’ and ‘me’, and oppositely, introduces the respect of ‘us’ allowing growth as a team. Furthermore, the cooperative approach is based in this respect of human being’s dignity to handle the conflict enquiring: ‘This is my position, what is yours?’, ‘How can we resolve it?’ (Carlopio & Andrewartha 2008, p. 347). In addition, according to Coetzer and Trimble (2010, p. 25), the election of a conflict management approach corresponds to a ‘high or low concern for self with high or low concern for others’. Therefore, a high concern for self and others will lead to a cooperative style which intends to satisfy the needs of all parties, respecting their dignity.
Carlopio and Andrewartha (2008, p. 352) cite research concluding that the ‘forcing response’ is the most common way to manage conflict. This approach aims to ‘get my way’ and to remove dignity from the employees, leaving them with feelings of defeat and humiliation. In the context that the ‘forcing response’ is the most common approach, I may conclude that the use of a cooperative approach would introduce a change of culture in the relations between managers and employees, a welcome for a mutual ‘visit’ to each other’s thoughts, interests, and preoccupations.
Toujours les mêmes thèmes
L'Allemand Robert Koldewey a découvert l'ancienne Babylone à la fin du 19e siècle et ses tablettes cunéiformes. Lors de la lecture des tablettes, Koldewey a été surpris de reconnaître le premier texte scolaire, le premier dictionnaire, la première comptabilité et des textes sur des thèmes variés incluant les plaintes de parents face aux enfants qui ne les respectent pas, des poèmes d'amour, et des chansons épiques. En effet, quelle surprise de découvrir que les auteurs de ces textes se préoccupaient des mêmes thèmes qui sont discutés et écrits dans nos sociétés modernes: l'éducation, la comptabilité, les rêves, et les espoirs. L'Homme est bien le même depuis le commencement des temps!
Source: Diana Uribe, Historia de las Civilizaciones
Source: Diana Uribe, Historia de las Civilizaciones
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)