Sunday, August 30, 2009

Blog Post #2: Resolving Interpersonal Conflict

This situation is based on a true story:

On 9th August 2002, fifty thousand spectators and performers were celebrating the nation’s birthday in the National Day Parade (NDP) except Mr. A and Mr. Z. Mr. Z was a participant in one of the cultural segment while Mr. A was Mr. Z’s trainer. Both of them were volunteers in their early twenties. That night was the tipping point of the conflict, Mr. A misinterpreted Mr. Z’s bending over action to be made to agitate Mr. A. Thus, Mr. A ran over and harshly reprimanded Mr. Z. Subsequently, both raised their voices and were pulled apart before they could start a fight.

Mr. A had volunteered as group trainer in NDP for three years. Each year, he would take care of fifty participants in his group and he was stricted towards his participants’ behaviors (who were volunteers too.) to ensure that they would perform up to the choreographers’ expectation. On the other hand, it was the first time Mr. Z participated in NDP. Thus, he enjoyed teasing other participants during trainings and defying instructions which irritated Mr. A.

Both Mr. A and Mr. Z got along during the initial 3 month of practices. The first rehearsal was the incident when conflict between Mr. A and Mr. Z brewed. All participants were supposed to stand with their props raised during the Grand Finale segment. But Mr. Z was reluctant to participate in this performance, so he sat on the ground while other performers were standing. Initially, Mr. A (in a firm tone) repeatedly asked Mr. Z to stand with no avail. On the other hand, Mr. Z was not willing to comply especially when he was increasingly annoyed with Mr. A’s overbearing leadership.

Gradually, relationship between Mr. A and Mr. Z soured. There were several occasions when Mr. Z requested to switch to another group (The request was denied as it was too late to change) and even suggested to quit from the performance. However, he stayed for his close friends who were performing in the adjacent group (Alpha). Mr. A made no attempt to improve communication with Mr. Z. Instead, he felt that Mr. Z was at fault and needed behavioral modification. Finally, the last straw came when Mr. Z bent over to tie his shoe lace. But Mr. A (not in speaking terms with Mr. Z) had mistaken his action as defiance, reprimanded Mr. Z loudly over his lack of discipline. This eventually evolved into a heated argument when both of them vented their discontentment over each other, raising their voice each time.

If you happen to be another trainer-in-charge of the adjacent group (Alpha) what action would you take (Mr. Z’s friends are in group (Alpha) as well)? What would you think Mr. A should do to handle the situation effectively?

5 comments:

  1. Mr. A should have requested to speak to Mr. Z when he refused to comply. Mr. A should find out the problem before reprimanding Mr. Z. if Mr. Z persists on disobeying orders and displaying defiance towards higher appointments, Mr. A could then warn him and take necessary disciplinary actions. On the other hand, Mr. Z should not display defiance to show his displeasure. Communication is the best way to break the barrier.

    It was because both of them could not see eye-to-eye, that’s why their working relation deteriorated.

    Both of them should understand the fact that they are indispensible figures for the parade. The parade will not happen if there aren’t any volunteers performing or any trainers to guide them.

    Mr. Z should understand that it’s too late for him to switch groups. He should try to forge a better working relation with Mr. A. Mr. Z should also be more lenient with the volunteers, make it an enjoyable and unforgettable experience for them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I would like to add on that there is a cause to every action. Both parties should reflect on why the other party is behaving that way, perhaps that would reveal their cause of actions.

    Why did Mr. Z took part in the parade? Was it because of his close friend in alpha? Did he joined on his own accord? If he wasn't keen about joining in the first place, he shouldn't have volunteered his service.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with shiny that 'communication is the best way to break the barrier'. I feel that effective communication skills are needed to not only to prevent the conflict, but to solve the issue too.

    Firstly, Mr A should not have been too strict with his participants' behaviour. He should strike a balance between being humourous to create a happy NDP experience for the participants and being strict only when he needs to. In this way, Mr Z would not have seen him as being over-bearing.

    Next, Mr Z should have be more tolerant of Mr A. He should not have persist on showing defiance and cause disruptions to the rehearsals. This affects the whole team and may even delay their time. Mr Z should have been more considerate of the people around. He should also take up his responsibilty to play his part and perform for his NDP practice and not put his ego first.

    This conflict would have been avoided if both parties gave each other opportunity to talk things through. However, they do have to take note of their tone and be patient with each other. They should not have left this strained relationship as it is. This has became an obstacle in their workflow.

    To solve this issue, an apology is needed from both parties. Mr A should clear up the misunderstanding Mr Z had with him and apologise for mistaking his tying of shoelace for an act of defiance. On the other hand, Mr Z should apologise for being un-cooperative and causing disruptions to the workflow. If he's not willing to show his respnsibility to make NDP a success, he should not have participate in this event in the first place.

    Hazel =).

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Patrick!

    I took part in NDP year 2002 as well! :D My secondary school participated in the last segment.

    As a group trainer, Mr A had his responsibilities. For Mr. Z, having fun might had helped to relieve boredom during those long and repetitive rehearsals.

    I feel that personality plays an important part in human interaction. As Mr A is serious while Mr. Z is playful, more effort must be put in from the both of them if they want to keep a good relationship. Both of them must learn how to give and take. Mr. A should try to understand that while Mr. Z may be teasing other participants, it does not mean that Mr. A did not get his instructions. Pephaps a heart to heart talk can be initiated by the trainer-in-charge of the adjacent group to find the middle ground.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This is a very interesting scenario, which -- aside from the plethora of grammar errors -- is quite detailed by your description. It's easy to see the conflict brewing. Your language use is a serious problem though, Patrick. Did your blogging buddy look at this? You two need to review it again, and pay special attention to your verb tense misuse.

    Thank you for your effort!

    ReplyDelete