At one time in their operation, companies experience conflicts. Many things may cause conflicts in an organization. However, a lack of effective communication is the main cause of conflicts in an organization. This lack of communication may be from high-level management or from ordinary personnel. Learning and applying conflict management skills may actually save a company from collapsing. The greatest asset that a company can ever have is not astronomical sales and profits but employees and customers. Passing information efficiently and effectively between these groups is of prime importance for a company to survive. (Spangler, 2003) Establishing a clear strategy and involving workers who know their clear roles and responsibilities in decision-making will go a long way in avoiding and solving internal conflicts. It is very unfortunate to see great talents go and other resources withdrawn all because of small issues that could be solved amicably. (Rolle, 2007)
A good example of conflict brought about by lack of communication is the case of Empyrean Company. It is true that while the two could not agree, the company was failing. The incident where Empyrean Company almost failed to secure a contract with Capital One shows where the company was heading. I may therefore say that given the circumstances, Kalinsky did right to fire Kensworthy since this may have been the only way to save the company with no communication between them. One can also say that Kenswworthy’s family seems to have been bent on exploiting Kalinsky from the very start. However, if we look at it from another side, we can say that Kolinsky failed as a manager and a leader to establish good communication among other conflict management skills with Kensworthy and other company personnel. Hew is the one who therefore disappointed and should not have fired his former brother-in-law. Instead, he should have considered Kensworthy’s value to the company and strived to solve their differences amicably. (Rolle, 2007)
There was generally very poor communication in the affairs of Empyrean Company something that created many problems. It would have served the company well for it to have established clear roles for each employee, define who is answerable to who and on what terms. The company should also have ensured that the company’s condition and decisions reach the top management. If Kensworthy’s roles were clearly defined, the chances of conflict could have been minimized. As a representative of the Company’s top decision-making organ, Kolinsky was wrong to wait and receive information on the affairs of the company. His failure to know that Empyrean had not paid payroll taxes and that a senior employee had quit his job for a whole six months is a good example of non-communication. There were obviously no structures that would have relayed information to Kalinsky. (Spangler, 2003)
While Kensworthy could have been angered by his former brother-in-law for one reason or another, he did not exploit proper communication channels to solve these issues. Undermining his boss before other employees instead of confronting his boss could only have affected the company negatively. Why did he not tell his boss about one of the company’s major account conditions? For whatever reason, he was not communicating with his boss. It is sad that while the two could have noticed signs of conflicts between them earlier, they never made deliberate efforts to solve issues between them for the sake of the company. (Spangler, 2003)
Kalinsky’s decision to fire his former brother-in-law did not follow proper communication procedures. A better way of approaching this issue could have been first of all to try and reach out to Kensworthy. A warning could then have been communicated if this effort could have failed to work out. The decision to fire Kensworthy could then have been communicated to him first to avoid such instances where he got the information first from his dad. Issues of the settlement could even have been agreed upon before firing to avoid extra costs that could be avoided. (Smith, n.d)
Kalinsky and his former brother-in-law did not apply integrative communication through principled negotiations. This happened despite the fact that they could both make out something good from their conflict. For example, while Kensworthy wanted a promotion, Kalinsky could have been more interested in drawing clear roles for him to avoid conflicts. Kensworthy could also have been assigned more responsibilities at the top level to reduce Kalinsky’s workload under a structure that would ensure harmony between the two. This could especially have helped Kalinsky who despite the possibility of suffering from an immediate divorce, seemed to be overwhelmed by management workload. For example, the fact that he did not get information on the Company’s current affairs shows that he must have been engrossed in other pressing issues. (Spangler, 2003)
For some reason, the relationship between Kalinsky and his former brother-in-law Kensworthy was bound to be strained. First of all, Kensworthy may have considered himself a great investor in the company and therefore felt that he had a right to promotion and management in the company. There also existed a likelihood of conflict between family and business ties. Kensworhy’s sister had divorced Kolinsky. This could easily spill over to the company and create conflicts between Kensworthy and his former brother-in-law. Besides, Kensworthy’s father-Bruce was a friend and an investor in the company. It was therefore difficult for Kalinsky to be open and honest when dealing with Kensworthy. Moreover, they never communicated or even made decisions together maybe because they had not clearly agreed on their roles and responsibilities. (Smith, n.d)
Apart from failing to handle communication effectively, Kensworthy and his former brother-in-law seem to have acted more on emotions than reason. This is not an effective way of handling conflicts especially in such sensitive situations where so much is at stake. The core problem that started all this could have been something so small like a conversation that was misinterpreted. The two did not make deliberate efforts to reconcile. One may fail to understand why Kalinsky canceled a visit to see his former brother-in-law when this could have presented the best opportunity for establishing better communication. On the other hand, eye-to-eye interactions have proved to be more efficient in solving conflicts than mere telephone conversations and E-mails. They could even have gone as far as involving an impartial mediator to iron out their differences. (Rolle, 2007)
Some researchers have actually estimated that companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars due to internal conflicts. Some have even collapsed while many others have failed to reach their potential and goals because of the same problem. It is therefore important for companies to develop policies and implement strategies that minimize internal conflicts. An important thing to remember is that it is only wise for people facing conflicts in these situations, especially in the top management to know that while emotions may rise and angry words exchanged, it is always the company that is at stake. Everyone is therefore bound to lose in these circumstances.
References List
Rolle, O. (2007).Conflict management. Web.
Smith, N.Common Communication problems. Web.
Spangler, B. (2003).Integrative or interest-Based Bargaining. Web.