MGT102 Compare and Contrast the Outcomes of Conflict Management

 

Australia’s #1 Assignment Help is a highly acknowledged Homework Help provider among the students. We offer our Assignment Writing Help on more than 100 subjects with the help of our highly knowledgeable and skilled writers. In order to get the best writing service, students should contact with us rather than searching for MGT102 Introduction to Business Operations Case Study Assignment Help.

 

 

Assignment Details:-

  • Document Type ::
  • Subject :: Management
  • Deadline :*: As Per Required
  • Number of Words :: 2000
  • Citation/Referencing Style :: APA7

 

Assignment Task:-

 

Qualification outcome expectations

Research and referencing: You are required to engage in some research in order to successfully complete this assignment. Ensure you include a full reference list, including all sources, using the latest APA guidelines. Correct referencing is an expectation of tertiary study.

Presentation guidelines: Work is expected to be word-processed and submitted as a Word document or PDF, use a clear, readable font and be within 10% of the given word count (excluding any referencing). Include your name, student number and the paper code and assignment number as a header or footer. Reports should include headings or subheadings as required. Spellchecking and proofreading of work prior to submission is strongly encouraged.

 

TASK

For this assignment you will analyse the following Case Study and answer the related questions. You will have to substantiate your findings by referencing to source materials including your textbook and other sources. You will need to engage in some research into the theories underpinning the managing organisational conflict in order to successfully complete this assignment.

 

Instructions:

  1. Evaluate the TIGO case study based on conflict and write a detailed Consider the conflict types, cause and potential outcomes/issues.
  2. Describe how TIGO can resolve or manage the existing conflict using conflict management strategies and instil a system to prevent both internal and external conflict/issues in the future.
  3. In our view, Michel (the Vice President of the organisation to whom the Directors’ John, Smith and Tom report to) failed to play the Mediator/ Negotiator role to resolve/manage the conflict between the senior members of the ” Assess this statement and
    1. Explain your own view giving reasons
    2. Describe a manager’s role in managing conflict.
  1. Based on the case study, write a recommendation to TIGO highlighting the importance of managing organisational conflict supported by relevant theories and concepts.

 

A CASE STUDY OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR: CONFLICT MANAGEMENT

To create a footprint in the telecommunication Business & Operation Support System (BSS and OSS) a well-known fortune 500 company, TIGO (name changed), acquired a leading software company in the billing and revenue management sector named ZED (name changed) in the year 2004. TIGO is a multinational company with its headquarters in USA.

 

This acquisition was consolidated at TIGO, under the Telecommunication Business Unit (TBU). To utilize the cost advantage and the technical expertise, TIGO started its TBU division activities at the India development centre (IDC). TIGO also maintained a group (here after referred to as HQ team) at its headquarters, which focused on R & D activities and for supporting a few key customers. Most of the employees who were part of TBU division came from ZED software. The main responsibilities of the IDC group were to provide support to the existing customers and provide minor enhancement to the existing product.

 

This case study discusses the growth of the TBU’s engineering division at IDC and the challenges it faced while dealing with the needs of the employees, aspirations of its leaders and the effects and challenges it created to the group at its HQ division and the HQ group heads reaction to it.

 

This is a case study of the Engineering (Product Development) group of the TBU division. The entire engineering division at IDC was led by the directors, John and Smith. Tom was leading the R & D group at HQ. Both John and Smith had independent teams. John and Smith’s teams worked on customer support activities and were responsible for addressing product issues and implementing minor enhancements of the product. Under their leadership, these groups delivered many customer success stories and created a good impression and were viewed as an asset to the organization. Both the directors were leading the customer support activities. As the IDC group achieved more and more success, the aspiration of the directors started to change. Both the directors started showing intent to lead the entire IDC engineering division. John was very aggressive and ambitious. He was action-oriented and forward thinking. While Smith kept to his duties and focused on the day to day customer issues, however, he also showed intent to lead the division.

 

As the team in IDC successfully managed the customer support activity, some of their key engineers also expressed a desire to work on R & D activities. They wanted a break from the routine work. John encouraged the team to express their views on the type of work they would like to do in the future and promised to explore the feasibility of these ideas.

 

During this time, the entire customer support activity was shifted to the IDC centre and the team in HQ focused solely on R& D activities. As the IDC organization grew (in terms of domain expertise, strength, and excellence), there were concern from the HQ division (Tom’s team) about their role and future. Meanwhile, the recession in USA had also impacted the IT job market and job security was a major worrying factor for the HQ team.

 

Creating a New Group:

To take the IDC organization on a further growth path, during one of the Staff meeting, John proposed to create a focused group (consisting of key engineers from John and Smith’s group) within the organization (under his leadership) to work on new product development and to collaborate with the R& D division in HQ. This proposal shocked Smith as John had never discussed this idea with him, and he felt let down. Smith opposed this idea. On hearing the proposal from John, Tom started worrying about the R & D team located at HQ. The HQ team expressed the concern that they may lose their jobs once the R & D work is offloaded to IDC. He also started worrying about his position in the organization as he knew John was a very aggressive leader and had a good rapport within organization. Michel promised to look into this idea and promised to provide his views on it soon. Michel relied on Tom’s inputs to make decisions related to the engineering division, as he was a new to the division.

 

In the meanwhile, problems started cropping up between the groups headed by John and Smith. John tried to convince Smith about the benefits of new group, but Smith has different ideas. Smith suggested that, instead of forming new group (consisting of key engineers from John and Smith’s group), we should utilize part of every engineer’s time to do the R & D activity. Talks about starting a focus group became a conflicting point between John and Smith. Even on common issues, they had different views. This difference became quite public during team meetings. This started affecting the team morale and the day to day activities of the IDC group.

 

Michel kept on delaying the decision (on suggestion from Tom) on the new group formation at IDC. This uncertainty about the new group formation and the differences between the IDC directors was taking toll on the productivity of the teams and eventually on customer satisfaction. He always took care of his team members very well. Along with the formation of the new group, he had proposed better benefits and flexibility to his team members to motivate them.

 

John frequently reminded the higher management about the new group formation and the difficulties he was having in co-coordinating with Smith. The management kept on delaying the decision and eventually John resigned from the company. As Smith’s performance was not up to the mark, the upper management decided to terminate his employment. The sudden departure of both the directors created huge gap in the leadership of the IDC organization. Most of the team started worrying about the future of the group and some of the experienced engineers left the company.

 

During this period, Tom reached out to a few key engineers at IDC and assured them job opportunities at HQ’s R& D team. The attrition level went up to 60% at IDC centre. This affected the customer support activity. Sensing an opportunity, Tom made a pitch to the higher management that, with current capacity and expertise at IDC, the division can no longer handle the support activities and the HQ team needs to pitch in to complete this work. Finally, the upper management agreed, and the critical customer support activity was moved to the HQ division. The job security concern of the HQ division vanished as they started playing a key role in support as well as in R & D activities. At the end of all this, the IDC division was functioning in a lesser role and had hired a new leadership team.

 

Marking schedule

Criteria E (0-39) D (40-49) C (50-64) B (65-79) A (80-100)
Evaluation of Conflict

Weighting 10%

Clear evidence of lack of understanding fails to identify purpose of evaluating conflict.

Lack of knowledge of theory and poor understanding of Case Study application.

Unconvincing evaluation and poor examples

Lack of understanding of objectives and purpose of evaluating conflict.

Little comprehension of link between theory and case study.

Incomplete and weak examples.

Reasonable evaluation of conflict and linked to Case Study.

Sound understanding and knowledge demonstrated by linking conflict management theories and concepts

Competent evaluation of conflict and linked to Case Study.

Thorough understanding and knowledge demonstrated by linking conflict management theories and concepts

Excellent evaluation of conflict and linked to Case Study.

Extremely high level of understanding and in-depth knowledge demonstrated by linking conflict management theories and concepts

Conflict management strategies and system

Weighting 20%

Clear evidence of lack of understanding, fails to identify conflict management strategies and systems

Lack of knowledge of theory and poor understanding of Case Study application.

Unconvincing evaluation

Lack of understanding of conflict management strategies and systems.

Little comprehension of link between theory and case study.

Weak evaluation

Reasonable choice of remedial strategies clearly relevant to Case Study.

Sound understanding and knowledge demonstrated by linking conflict management theories and concepts

Competent identification of remedial strategies clearly relevant to Case Study.

 

Thorough understanding and knowledge demonstrated by linking conflict management theories and concepts

Excellent identification of remedial strategies clearly relevant to Case Study.

Extremely high level of understanding and in-depth knowledge demonstrated by linking conflict management theories and concepts

Manager’s role

Weighting 15%

Clear evidence of lack of understanding fails to identify the manager’s role in managing conflict

Lack of knowledge of theory and poor understanding of Case Study application.

Unconvincing evaluation

Lack of understanding of the manager’s role in managing conflict

Little comprehension of link between theory and case study.

Weak evaluation

Reasonable description of manager’s role when managing conflict

Sound understanding and knowledge demonstrated by linking conflict management theories and concepts

Good description of manager’s role when managing conflict

Thorough understanding and knowledge demonstrated by linking conflict management theories and concepts

Excellent description of manager’s role when managing conflict

Extremely high level of understanding and in-depth knowledge demonstrated by linking conflict management theories and concepts

Importance of Managing organisation al conflict – theories and concepts

Weighting 20%

Clear evidence of lack of understanding fails to identify purpose of objectives.

Lack of knowledge of strategies and poor understanding of Case Study application.

Lack of understanding of the importance of managing organisational conflict

Little comprehension of link between theory and case study.

Weak evaluation

Reasonable explanation on importance of managing organisational conflict

Sound understanding and knowledge demonstrated by linking conflict management

Competent explanation on importance of managing organisational conflict

Thorough understanding and knowledge demonstrated by linking conflict management

Excellent explanation of importance on managing organisational conflict

Extremely high level of understanding and in-depth knowledge demonstrated by

linking conflict

Unconvincing evaluation and poor examples theories and concepts theories and concepts management theories and concepts
Writing and organisation Weighting 10% No consideration for presentation.

Little evidence of clear writing or structure, very difficult to follow.

Argument very unsound or weak.

Numerous spelling and/or grammatical errors that have a significant impact on readability.

Acceptable presentation.

Some evidence of clear or structured writing.

Argument weak or unconvincing.

Some grammatical and/or spelling errors that impact noticeably on readability.

Tidy presentation.

Mostly clear writing that shows acceptable organisation and structure.

Argument is generally clear.

Few issues around grammar and/or spelling, some of which have a minor impact on readability.

Good presentation.

Clear writing mainly to the point. Mostly well organised and structured writing.

Most arguments are sound and convincing.

Good spelling and grammar with only minor oversights that do not impact on readability.

Polished presentation.

Clear, concise and well-structured writing throughout.

All arguments are sound and convincing.

Excellent spelling and grammar correct in all aspects.

Research

Weighting 20%

No consideration for presentation.

Little evidence of clear writing or structure, very difficult to follow.

Argument very unsound or weak.

Numerous spelling and/or grammatical errors that have a significant impact on readability.

Inadequate presentation.

Some evidence of clear or structured writing.

Argument weak or unconvincing.

Some grammatical and/or spelling errors that impact noticeably on readability.

Adequate presentation.

Mostly clear writing that shows acceptable organisation and structure.

Argument is generally clear.

Few issues around grammar and/or spelling, some of which have a minor impact on readability.

Good presentation.

Clear writing mainly to the point. Mostly well organised and structured writing.

Most arguments are sound and convincing.

Good spelling and grammar with only minor oversights that do not impact on readability.

Polished presentation.

Clear, concise and well-structured writing throughout.

All arguments are sound and convincing

Excellent spelling and grammar correct in all aspects.

In-text citations and Reference list APA formatted

Weighting 5%

Very limited or no referencing attempted, or none follows APA guidelines. References and/or citations do not follow APA guidelines, or limited referencing attempted. References and/or citations follow some APA guidelines. References and citations follow most APA guidelines. References and citations follow all APA guidelines.

 

FOR REF… USE #getanswers2001552

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *