Free Essay On General Framework For Collaborative Problem Solving And Application To Case

Management

Establishing Superordinate Goals
Establishing super-ordinate goals is the first general framework for the collaborative problem-solving. In this framework, both of the conflicting parties have to identify what they have in common and focus on it. Focusing on these commonalities involves making these shared goals clear because it sensitizes the conflicting parties to the advantages of resolving their conflict or differences to prevent jeopardizing their mutual interest or goals. This framework encompasses a general view of the kind of the common goals that provide the context for discussion by the involved parties. With reference to the case, the Company and the Union can identify their mutual goal, which is to determine the possible discipline for Mr. Teller. After the identification, the two parties can then proceed to negotiation.

Separating the People from the Problem

This step involves focusing on the conflict and significant aspects such as solving the problem. The two parties, the Company, and the Union can end up in a mutual agreement and satisfaction if they depersonalize their disagreements by suppressing other desires for one-upmanship or revenge. They can do so by critiquing the suggestions of each other until a favorable solution is found.

Focusing on the Interests

Conflicting parties should focus on the interests and not then positions. Positions encompass assertions or demands whereas the interests are the reasons behind these assertions. As such, the Company can redefine its third position suggesting that it is in disagreement with the aspect that the abuse threat excused the misconduct of Mr. Teller. Redefining or broadening the problems is important because it makes them more tractable.

Inventing Options for Mutual Gains

This stage focuses on the generation of creative and diversified positions. It encompasses the reviewing of the underlying goals of each of the conflicting party and examining the possible alternatives. As such, there is room for an examination of the mutually agreeable options, which gradually shifts the conflict or argument from a competitive approach to a collaborative. For this, reason, the conflicting parties in the case, the Union and the Company can come up with more options and alternatives for their negotiations. Consequently, the combination of these options for exploration increases the probability of finding a common solution.

Using Objective Criteria for Evaluating the Alternatives

Despite the collaboration of the conflicting parties, they are bound to certain incompatible interests. For instance, the Union requests the reinstatement for Mr. Teller to his all-purpose clerk position in the BuyMore Grocery Store, at the current wage scale applicable and with the seniority at the time of occurrence of the incidence. On the other hand, the Company’s position is that the reinstatement could be a wrong implication to the other employees concerning the issue of honesty. For this reason, the Company and the Union can weigh on both positions and determine which is fair in order to prevent instances of over-commitment.

Defining Success in Terms of Real Gains

Conflicting parties should determine their success in terms of real gains rather that imaginary losses. As such, it is important for the Union and the Company to recognize their satisfaction with the outcome of the negotiations would be affected by the standards they employed in judging it. With this recognition, they will be judging the values of their proposed solutions against their reasonable standards. Using this perspective enables the conflicting parties identify whether the outcome constitutes meaning improvements over their current conditions.