ATTENTION:
BEFORE YOU READ THE ABSTRACT OR CHAPTER ONE OF THE PROJECT TOPIC BELOW, PLEASE READ THE INFORMATION BELOW.THANK YOU!
INFORMATION:
YOU CAN GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT OF THE TOPIC BELOW. THE FULL PROJECT COSTS N5,000 ONLY. THE FULL INFORMATION ON HOW TO PAY AND GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT IS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE. OR YOU CAN CALL: 08068231953, 08168759420
WHATSAPP US ON 08137701720
THE ROLE OF PUBLIC POLICY IN INTERNAL CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the study
The need for a new approach to workplace dispute resolution has become central focus of public employment policy (Gibbons, 2007). In particular, it has been argued that more emphasis needs to be placed on early responses to individual employment disputes and the increased use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) processes. Recent attention has centered on the promotion and use of workplace mediation. While there has been limited academic research into workplace mediation in Nigeria, there is a growing evidence base that points to its potential benefits (CIPD, 2008)
Literature on organization and management has been a re-examination of internal conflict. It is perceived as inevitable, often legitimate and perhaps even desirable. Conflict between individual and between groups is a universal phenomenon. Areas of conflict will help management or manager to make necessary adjustment and changes so as to come up with a better way of correcting it.
Conflict is one of the most prevalent issues in organization. It has been one of the tools the management uses to develop the relationship between manager and staff. It is in view of this that study looked at the causes of conflict and resolution in an organization.
Conceptual Framework- Khun And Poole’s Model
Khun and Poole (2000) established a similar system of group conflict management. In their system, they split Kozan’s confrontational model into two sub models: distributive and integrative. Distributive – Here conflict is approached as a distribution of a fixed amount of positive outcomes or resources, where one side will end up winning and the other losing, even if they do win some concessions. Integrative – Groups utilizing the integrative model see conflict as a chance to integrate the needs and concerns of both groups and make the best outcome possible. This model has a heavier emphasis on compromise than the distributive model. Khun and Poole found that the integrative model resulted in consistently better task related outcomes than those using the distributive model.
De-Church and Marks’s Meta-Taxonomy
DeChurch and Marks (2001) examined the literature available on conflict management at the time and established what they claimed was a “meta-taxonomy” that encompasses all other models. They argued that all other styles have inherent in them into two dimensions-activeness (lithe extent to which conflict behaviors make a responsive and direct rather than inert and indirect impression”) and agreeableness (lithe extent to which conflict behavior make a pleasant and relaxed rather than unpleasant and strainful impression”). High activeness is characterized by openly discussing differences of opinion while fully going after their own interest. High agreeableness is characterized by attempting to satisfy all parties involved. In the study they conducted to validate this division, activeness did not have a significant effect on the effectiveness of conflict resolution, but the agreeableness of the conflict management style, whatever it was, did in fact have a positive impact on how groups felt about the way the conflict was managed, regardless of the outcome.
Rahim’s Metal Model
Rahim (2002) noted that there is agreement among management scholars that there is no one best approach to how to make decisions, lead or manage conflict. In a similar vein, rather than creating a very specific model of conflict management, Rahim created a meta-model (in much the same way that DeChurch and Marks, 2001, created a metataxonomy) for conflict styles based on two dimensions, concern for self and concern for others.
Within this framework are five management approaches: integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding, and compromising. Integration involves openness; exchanging information, looking for alternatives, and examining differences so solve the problem in a manner that is acceptable to both parties. Obliging is associated with attempting to minimize the differences and highlight the commonalities to satisfy the concern of the other party.
1.2 Statement of the problem
When using the dominating style one party goes all out to win his or her objective and, as a result, often ignores the needs and expectations of the other party. When avoiding a party fails to satisfy his or her own concern as well as the concern of the other party. Lastly, compromising involves give-and-take whereby both parties give up something to make a mutually acceptable decision. (Rahim, 2002).
1.3 Objectives of the study
1. To understand the impact of public policy in internal conflict management
2. To understand the relationship between public policy and internal conflict management
1.4 Research questions
1. What is the impact of public policy in internal conflict management
2. What is the relationship between public policy and internal conflict management
1.5 Research hypothesis
H0: There is no relationship between public policy and internal conflict management
H1: There is a relationship between public policy and internal conflict management
HOW TO RECEIVE PROJECT MATERIAL(S)
After paying the appropriate amount (#5,000) into our bank Account below, send the following information to
08068231953 or 08168759420
(1) Your project topics
(2) Email Address
(3) Payment Name
(4) Teller Number
We will send your material(s) after we receive bank alert
BANK ACCOUNTS
Account Name: AMUTAH DANIEL CHUKWUDI
Account Number: 0046579864
Bank: GTBank.
OR
Account Name: AMUTAH DANIEL CHUKWUDI
Account Number: 3139283609
Bank: FIRST BANK
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CALL:
08068231953 or 08168759420