Implementing Evaluation

Implementing Evaluation

           In the event that an organization would benefit from an evaluation yet inadequate or limited in fostering the necessary focus and resources, the consultant has a professional responsibility to convince management to implement supplementary resources advantageous to the proposed evaluation and consequently the organization.  Conveying such benefits is imperative to the consultant gaining administrative acceptance and support.  In effort to achieve such an aspiration, the consultant is obligated to execute the following:

1. Develop an ample amount of commitment from the staff and management.
2. Include stakeholders and consider their interests.
3. Attain knowledge of the organizational environment and relative issues.
4. Professionally, appropriately, and responsibly explicate and conduct the evaluation process (Russ-Eft & Preskill, 2009).

Given a specific circumstance such as a plunge in productivity as a speculated result of depleted employee satisfaction, the consultant may desire to conduct an employee evaluation or assessment.  This would enable the consultant to gain insight into the issues afflicting employees, how the organization and work conditions affect their level of satisfaction, and pinpoint areas of improvement.  In addition they may deem it necessary to seek outsourced assistance of a counseling firm or support service, or implement employee satisfaction tactics.  In effort to do so they would need to offer their observation to management and request permission to proceed.  Once granted proper consent, the consultant should research and contact organizational counseling consultants specializing in employee satisfaction.  Next, the consultant should address the staff along with management, explaining their agenda, objectives, expected effects, and probable future impact.

References:

Russ-Eft, D. & Preskill, H. (2009). Evaluation in organizations: A systematic approach

to enhancing learning, performance, and change (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books.

LOCATION, Location, location

"out of this world from within"

Intergroup Conflict Escalation

 

Intergroup Conflict Escalation

             Conflict escalation transpires when there is “an increase in the intensity of a conflict and in the severity of tactics used in pursuing it. When conflicts escalate, more people tend to become involved. Parties begin to make bigger and stronger threats and impose harsher negative sanctions” (Maiese, 2003).  “Escalation involves the increasing use of heavier methods of influence, especially coercive or punishing tactics, by each group to reach its goals in opposition to those of the other group” (Deutsch, Coleman, Marcus, 2006, p. 184).  Intergroup conflict escalation occurs when these issues exist or spread amongst a group or organization.  For the practitioner, it is important to note what factors contribute to the escalation of conflict, in effort to assist the disputants in deescalating the conflict, or to deter escalation from occurring altogether.  Various factors that tend to escalate intergroup conflict are as follows:

1. Incompatible Goals - If the parties do not see a possibility of finding a mutually beneficial solution and one believes that it has the power to substantially alter the aspirations of the other; it may try to bully the other side into submission.
2. Uncompromising Beliefs / Values - Matters regarded by adversaries as being integral to their personal or collective identities; groups that exhibit radically different attitudes, values, and behaviors, parties may feel criticized, demeaned, or threatened.
3. Hostility - Typically caused by grievances or a sense of injustice, and may ultimately be rooted in events of the distant past. One party feels that it has been treated unfairly by its opponent, and angrily blames its opponent for the suffering it has endured.
4. Selective Perception - Once parties have expectations about the other side, they tend to notice the behavior that fits these expectations. But this tendency to make observations that fit their preconceptions simply makes those preconceptions stronger.  As a result, the actions of distrusted parties are seen as threatening, even when their actions are ambiguous (Maiese, 2003).

However, “through a combination of skills in interpersonal communication, group facilitation, intergroup problem solving, and system-level consulting, outside third parties or balanced teams of representatives can assist groups to confront their differences effectively” (Deutsch, Coleman, Marcus, 2006, p. 195).  In effort to manage these conflicts, the following techniques may be utilized:

1. Avoidance - Although this does not resolve the problem, it can help get a group through a period of time, in which those involved may become more objective, or a greater, more immediate goal would have been met.  This approach is especially effective on relatively simple conflicts and is viewed as a short-term remedy.
2. Problem Solving / Cooperation / Collaboration - Can be very effective in conflicts of misunderstanding or language barriers. The groups can discuss issues and relevant information, with or without a facilitator, to reach resolution; Long-term resolution.
3. Authoritative Command - Where groups, who cannot satisfactorily resolve their conflict, are commanded by management; Short-term remedy.
4. Focal Point - Focusing on the cause of the conflict and the attitudes of those involved, will lead to a more permanent resolution (Belak, 1998).

References:

Belak, T. (1998). Intergroup Conflict in the Workplace. Retrieved August 12, 2010, from

http://www.mediate.com/articles/belak1.cfm.

Deutsch, M., Coleman, P.T., Marcus, E.C., (Eds.). (2006). The Handbook of Conflict

Resolution: Theory & Practice. (2^nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Maiese, M. (2003). Destructive Escalation. Retrieved August 12, 2010, from

            http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/escalation/.