Examples of summarization and evaluation of annotated bibliographies: Field, J. (2003). Social capital. Retrieved from EBSCO eBook and Audiobook Collection database. In this section, you will be writing the annotation for the source you have cited above. An annotated bibliography can simply describe the source (summary annotation) or it can also include an evaluation (evaluative annotation). For summary annotations, briefly talk about the source. Focus on describing your source, such as the author's qualifications and why was the source created. Describe the main ideas, arguments, themes, theses, or methodology, and identify the intended audience of the cited source Explain the author's expertise, point of view, and any bias he or she may have about the topic. Freeman, R.E. & Auster, E.R. (2011). Values, authenticity, and responsible leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 15-23. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-1022-7 Evaluative annotations include both a short description and your evaluation of the cited source. In your evaluation, critically assess the selected source for accuracy, relevance, and quality. Compare to other sources on the same topic that you have also cited to show similarities and differences. Explain why each source is useful for your research topic and how it relates to your topic. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the source. Identify the observations or conclusions of the author.

SHORTENED TITLE 3 Maak, T. (2007). Responsible leadership, stakeholder engagement, and the emergence of social capital. Journal of Business Ethics, 7, 329-343. doi: 10.1007/s10551-007-9510-5 This is an example of a summary annotation. This article focuses on the role of social capital in responsible leadership. It looks at both the social networks that a leader builds within an organization, and the links that a leader creates with external stakeholders. Maak's main aim with this article seems to be to persuade people of the importance of continued research into the abilities that a leader requires and how they can be acquired. Maak, T. (2007). Responsible leadership, stakeholder engagement, and the emergence of social capital. Journal of Business Ethics, 7, 329-343. doi: 10.1007/s10551-007-9510-5 This is an example of an evaluative annotation. This article focuses on the role of social capital in responsible leadership. It looks at both the social networks that a leader builds within an organization, and the links that a leader creates with external stakeholders. Maak's main aim with this article seems to be to persuade people of the importance of continued research into the abilities that a leader requires and how they can be acquired. The focus on the world of multinational business means that for readers outside this world many of the conclusions seem rather obvious (be part of the solution not part of the problem). In spite of this, the article provides useful background information on the topic of responsible leadership and definitions of social capital which are relevant to an analysis of a public servant.

Rubric:

The annotated bibliography for each source should cite 3 sources as outlined in the assignment, include at least 3 reliable and/or trustworthy sources, list all sources chronologically

Each of the 3 annotations provide a summary and evaluation of the source(s). The summary provides a neutral perspective and the evaluation includes the students opinion, and explains the relevance of the source to the topic. The student presents a clear understanding of research process: offers insight into source The annotation has substantial information

use these 3 sources for the annotated bibliography

article:Manage Conflict More Effectively.

During the early part of my career,managingconflictwas very much "in your face." Managers and co-workers were direct and, at times, forceful in saying what they felt needed to be said. Words were often used like an axe and "let the chips fall where they may."

That style was harsh, but things were out in the open. Early in my career my direct manager was very blunt in pointing out what he saw as an error in (my) judgment. He asked me to step into his office where he looked me straight in the eye, made his point in very stern language while explaining his clear expectations. After a brief pause, he changed the topic to discuss another issue where he was very supportive. His earlier rebuke was nothing personal. However, it was a learning opportunity which stuck with me the rest of my career.

Things have changed in the workplace, as all forms of confrontation seem to be fading away. While destructive confrontation needed to go away, not all confrontation is bad. For instance, confrontation is a way of life. It's not uncommon for children to talk back to adults and siblings fuss and argue with each other. It's part of our DNA.

However, as we grow into adulthood, confrontation seems to become complicated and unwelcome. Many people today try to avoid confrontation. This might be somewhat related to the ease of litigation in our society. Consider something as simple as annual performance evaluations. Prior to the 2000's, performance evaluations were a time for manager and employee to have a constructive discussion of what happened during the year and what needs to happen in the coming year.

The more effective managers had at least quarterly one-on-one discussions so both parties fully understood how things were going. These discussions typically led to greater understanding which resulted in effective evaluations.

Many managers today are hesitant to give meaningful performance evaluations for a couple reasons: (1) They are afraid to say what they really think, for fear of an angry response. (2) Anything they say or write can be used against the manager or the organization.

What's the result? Mediocrity and frustration. It can lead to an employee thinking they are doing a good job when they aren't. Managers and co-workers may 'hint' that something is not going well, but the employee is thinking "My last performance evaluation was OK, so I'm doing fine."

People can spend a good portion of their career underperforming, but never figuring out why they weren't perceived as a high performer. Many co-workers knew why, but no one wanted to give them negative news. Result: (1) the person didn't realize their professional aspirations and (2) the company didn't receive full value from the person's efforts

I recall an instance in which a supervisor was reassigned to my group. Her previous annual appraisals were very good. It didn't take long, however, to discover discrepancies in her capabilities. Her previous manager admitted her evaluations were inflated because he wanted to avoid disputes. It took some time for her to correct her shortcomings, but she went on to become a valued employee who was promoted for her achievements.

Things have to be said, but it doesn't always have to be like butting heads. People can get hurt when they feel under attack. When this happens, people can carry around destructive resentment rather than deal with a difficult situation head on. Problems only fester and get worse, bad feelings run rampant, and everyone suffers. It doesn't have to be this way.

Most everyone recognizes the value of knowing how to confront a situation, to effectively go face-to-face with negative feedback, unwelcome news, or even uncomfortable questions.

In the middle of mymanagementcareer, we were introduced to constructive confrontation - a much different approach tomanagingconflict. In group projects, team members are encouraged to value diverging viewpoints for the betterment of the outcome. Seldom does anyone feel threatened in this environment because this is seen as constructive confrontation.

Constructive confrontation is not mean-spirited. It's not done with loud voices, being unpleasant, or exhibiting rude behavior. As important, it's not designed to affix blame. Remember, attack the problem, not the individual.

There are a host of problems in the business world. Orders are delayed or lost. Machines stop working. Quality problems arise. Not enough resources to do the job. People don't perform well. Unhappy customers. Such problems produce conflicts, but people have to discover the root cause and solve the problem.

Constructive confrontation can accelerate problem-solving. People must be direct and often deal with people face-to-face, quickly, to keep the problem from getting out of control. Everyone needs to concentrate on the problem, not on the individuals caught up in the situation.

Some people seem to think it is impolite to tackle anything or anyone head on, even in a business environment. However, it is the essence of corporate health to bring a problem to the surface, even if this requires a confrontation, so it can be dealt with as quickly as possible. Don't avoid confrontation but deal with it constructively.

Jim L. Smith has more than 45 years of industry experience in operations, engineering, research & development and qualitymanagement.

article:Revitalizing Quality Management Processes through Digitalization: Eradicating paper-based workflows and standalone solutions operating in isolation provides a good starting point to update quality management processes.

As the saying goes, "the only constant in life is change," and in today's life sciences industry, that's undoubtedly the case, as the widespread adoption of digital technologies for enhanced efficiency and regulatory compliance has become central to the evolution of the market. This evolution includes patients using apps and wearables to transmit data to healthcare providers, as well as the utilization of data analytics for comprehensive management, insights, and trend analysis.

Change is certainly a constant for global industry compliance as new or updated regulations and reference documents are published every 25 minutes worldwide--that's almost 58 a day, or more than 21,000 documents a year. Managing and maintaining compliance requires diligent efforts to track, review, evaluate, and take necessary actions to ensure continued compliance. To that end, quality management systems (QMS) need to be able to keep up with the ever-shifting sands of regulation. In a paper-based system, this represents a monumental task, especially as more systems become digitally transformed. With that in mind, quality management teams are embracing technologies to drive innovation and remove these error-prone, labour-intensive paper-based systems or standalone solutions.

Electronic quality management systems (eQMS) play a pivotal role in embedding quality principles throughout an organization's culture, facilitating the establishment of uniform policies, processes, and procedures. Consequently, organizations are better positioned for growth, ensuring alignment among employees and compliance with evolving regulatory requirements. In contrast, those still reliant on paper-based systems will struggle to keep pace with the rapidly changing regulatory landscape and the competitive advantages that technology affords others.

Implementing automated quality management operations enhances efficiency and consistency within a life science organization. However, the primary hurdle to embracing digital systems often boils down to the reluctance of individuals to depart from traditional paper-based methods. While paper-based systems come with their own set of challenges and limitations, people can be naturally resistant to change. Limitations of paper-based systems include increased manual administration, costly maintenance linked to workforce requirements, and errors in data collection, documentation, and retrieval.

Similarly, siloed systems encounter many of these same problems. In contrast, a digital eQMS introduces a uniform approach to quality processes, mitigating many of the aforementioned challenges. It offers adaptability for future innovations and aligns with current technologies, allowing for essential scalability, concurrent processing, and efficiency that paper-based processes cannot match. This integrated environment manages and monitors QMS processes, streamlining operations, reducing risk, and expediting deployment.

Moving from paper-based to digital quality processes requires changes in operations, functions, and departments, as well as a shift in the organization's culture. Life science organizations seeking genuine digital transformation and innovation through comprehensive electronic quality solutions must implement a change management process that ingrains quality into their core culture. Engaging employees from the outset by soliciting their individual insights is pivotal for achieving better adoption rates.

For example, one multinational life sciences manufacturer recognized the importance of harmonization as they developed their eQMS function. They took the initiative to gather input from stakeholders across various divisions and global offices, ensuring that each employee's voice was heard, and their input was integrated into critical processes. This approach led to enthusiastic employee adoption of the system.

Continuous feedback was collected as components were tested and implemented, giving all employees a sense of ownership over the initiative. In contrast to management's or IT's one-size-fits-all standardization, early and ongoing participation promoted a harmonious environment. When introducing a digital eQMS to an organization, there are several common challenges to avoid during the deployment process. Beyond addressing cultural and adoption issues, the quality team must establish an organization with a forward-looking approach to process data in near real-time and analyze historical data for proactive, preventative, and predictive measures.

Five common mistakes to steer clear of when implementing digital quality processes

To ensure a successful transition from paper-based or siloed processes to a digital environment, organizations must avoid these five common pitfalls when implementing a digital eQMS:

* Lack of a comprehensive roadmap. It is essential to develop and adhere to a detailed roadmap for the seamless implementation of a fully integrated eQMS. This roadmap should encompass aspects like process harmonization, configuration, data migration, integration, project management, training, validation, testing, and go-live support. Encouraging employee feedback during implementation is crucial to keeping everyone engaged. Emphasizing harmonization over strict standardization fosters adoption and instils a culture of quality within the organization through inclusivity.

* Replicating paper-based or siloed processes in the digital eQMS. Rushing into digitization often leads organizations to automate existing paper-based processes, inadvertently carrying over inefficiencies. This can result in issues such as sequential processing. Similarly, siloed processes tend to retain inefficiencies by failing to capitalize on opportunities for streamlining.

* Inadequate management of expectations and scope creep. Before the full transition, it's important to engage with every department involved in the QMS. Some teams may attempt to integrate themselves into the new system without proper inclusion in the core project plan. Setting clear internal expectations for the process and rollout plan can mitigate the risk of scope creep and disagreements about the system's scope. In some cases, it may be necessary to pause the process and regroup to ensure alignment among all departments and adherence to the roadmap.

* Neglecting migration planning. Proper organization and migration of existing documentation and information are crucial steps in the process of moving from paper-based systems. Avoiding internal conflicts regarding what to bring forward from paper-based systems is vital for the success of data migration and integration into the new system. When consolidating multiple systems, certain aspects may not carry over, which can lead to conflicts. A well-defined plan with a clear rationale for what will be included helps prevent outdated quality and compliance approaches from hindering progress. Not all legacy data needs to be transferred, and open communication and planning can address concerns about what will and won't migrate.

* Inadequate and opaque communication. Successful eQMS implementation hinges on effective communication among teams and stakeholders. Establishing communication channels from the outset and creating formal processes for feedback and conflict resolution are crucial for meeting target deadlines. It is imperative that all relevant departments are aware of the organization's forward movement, what is expected from all parties and how to address obstacles or conflicts during implementation and validation. Furthermore, leaders must show interest and actively manage internal communications to ensure a smooth adoption process. Change control should be viewed as an ongoing activity, with processes in place to monitor and assess the impact of all outcomes.

An outlook for successful deployment

Transitioning to digital eQMS is a complex endeavour that necessitates meticulous planning, a comprehensive roadmap, and transparent communication throughout the implementation process and beyond. By aligning processes, policies, and procedures from the outset, these initiatives stand a better chance of delivering the anticipated enhancements to operational efficiency, quality, and patient outcomes.

It's high time to embrace digital eQMS to enhance the quality and safety of products and optimize operations. Traditional paper-based methods may ensure compliance, but they often fall short in terms of efficiency, productivity, and continuous improvement. Successful eQMS implementations lead to improved operational efficiencies, increased revenue, enhanced patient satisfaction, reduced manufacturing non-conformance, and ongoing process improvement. Furthermore, digital adoption enables the use of technologies that empower organizations to achieve more with less, addressing business challenges more swiftly through improved detection, trend analysis, and decision support. Technology fosters innovation in ways that paper-based or disparate system implementations simply cannot support.

article:Conflict management, prevention, and resolution in medical settings. (Conflict Management)

Everything about conflict is difficult for physicians, who are by nature and conditioning quite confrontation adverse. But conflict is inevitable, and conflict management skills are essential life skills for effective people. The keys to conflict management are prevention, effective communication, and anger management, skills that can be learned and polished. Conflict management skills can enhance all aspects of lire for physicians, as well as those who work or live with them.

KEY CONCEPTS: Conflict Management Skills, Confrontation Adverse Physicians, Conflict Prevention, Effective Communication, Anger Management, Conflict Resolution.

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT IS especially difficult for physicians to embrace, because most of us are highly confrontation adverse. This is not hard to understand if you look at "typical" personality traits of physicians. According to Vaillant (1) and Gabbard (2), physicians tend to be compulsive, perfectionistic, guilt-prone, with an exaggerated sense of responsibility, limited emotional expressiveness (especially with respect to anger), and significant communications deficits, in particular an inability to ask for help. We are workaholics and chronically over-committed.

Most of these attributes are highly adaptive to doctoring, reinforced by medical training and rewarded by society. And being over-committed gives us a very convenient (and societally condoned) mechanism by which to avoid unpleasant confrontations or controversy. Our attendance to the "jealous mistress" of medical practice, especially in today's increasingly demanding practice environment, leaves little time for physicians to learn and practice conflict management, an essential life skill.

Conflict management

Conflicts encountered by physicians In the workplace parallel, to a surprising degree, those experienced in their own families; and conflict resolution skills employed by most physicians mirror those that were modeled by parents or significant others at home (who had no idea they were being mentors while behaving instinctually--often at their very worst). Not surprisingly, the outcomes of our attempts at work-related conflict management based on these models are frequently mediocre and sometimes disastrous.

One extremely common technique used by physicians in their own families--namely, postponement (until the issue cools off) (3), in reality a nearly unassailable technique of avoidance--is even less successful at managing work related conflicts in the health care setting than it is in medical marriages. This is because:

1. Physicians can't avoid showing up at the practice site because of a "higher calling." This is the "higher calling!"

2. Maintaining collegial relations and collaboration is essential to ensure the safety and the highest level of care for patients.

Failure to confront and manage conflict

It is a shameful secret that nearly every health care administrator and almost all hospital staff can recall delays or inadequacies in patient care caused by a provider refusing to consult the "on call" physician or group for a problem outside of their area of expertise because of some unresolved past conflict between the physicians. Actually, it's no secret. Plaintiffs attorneys are always on the lookout for this particular result of physicians failing to manage conflict effectively (if at all). So failure to manage conflict can be directly hazardous to our own personal and professional well-being, as well as that of our patients and institutions.

When interpersonal conflicts in medical settings inevitably spill over into patient care or staff relations, physician executives and administrators are called upon to simultaneously put Out fires and resolve deep-seated conflict or long standing problems between providers--STATI This exercise is not only impossible, but can hijack hours if not days of valuable time from other significant endeavors, invariably at the worst possible time.

And, in reality, even physician executives generally lack formal training in conflict management. So typically, as administrators (who are assumed to have special expertise in dealing with physicians: after all, we are them) we do our best, under the most trying circumstances, and sometimes are successful at calming the waters--for a time.

But the toll on our organizations and ourselves, in terms of spectacularly unproductive time, unsatisfactory or only temporary resolutions, continuing or even escalating ill-will, and deteriorating public and staff relations is often significant both in monetary terms and in human costs. More than a few "Hostile Environment" discrimination claims by subordinates have sprung from institutions failing to manage conflict between physicians. In one large group practice that consulted us, the frustration of dealing repetitively with fallout from a longstanding blood feud between practitioners had resulted in the CEO's resignation.

Conflict prevention

The best way to manage conflict, of course, is to prevent it. Contracts are a common technique well established for this purpose by the business community, though their use is a surprisingly recent development in the medical profession. The essential skill of contract drafting by attorneys is an attempt to predict and define every possible contingency in the formal relationship, and for the parties to agree in advance to defined solutions.

A well-drafted contract can prevent some conflicts and prescribe the mechanism for dealing with others. This can be automatic (sanction specified in the contract), or require further processing, such as arbitration or mediation. In the absence of a specified alternative. courts will attempt to enforce the contract. But it is unrealistic to expect any contract to cover all the possible contingencies in any human relationship, nor would such a contract be enforceable for the simple reason that the cost of litigating issues not essential to the business relationship would be prohibitive. And if we are willing to be perfectly honest, many behaviorally based conflicts in medical settings are not the sort of things for which physicians (or administrators) would willingly visit a public courtroom--or even a lawyer. So what is an administrator to do?

Behavioral conflict management

An emerging approach to conflict management by prevention in medical practice settings consists of establishing and agreeing upon realistic behavioral expectations at the beginning of the relationship. Collaboratively developed and self-enforcing, a pre-partnership agreement or 'principles of practice" can provide practitioners with guidance and standards against which to measure their own behavior and that of their peers. Such a document can be used for a systematic review of individual and group compliance with behavioral expectations, and allow for self correction or group enhanced redirection of individual members, short of sanctions or employment action. Self-generating these expectations, with planned periodic review and revision of the expectations, assures that they are, in fact, group norms, dynamic, and relevant. And enforcement by the community itself gives some assurance to each individual that standards will be applied evenly by others who also have agreed to abide by them.

In a group setting, adopting behavioral expectations in principles of practice can be undertaken before the group incorporates. In established groups, this can be accomplished whenever the group decides that it is an important issue. (Our experience is that this typically occurs following the unsatisfactory resolution of a significant conflict.) Nearly everyone has heard of mission building, and even though this process is still evolving in medical settings (if you don't believe it, ask how many of your leaders can state--or even paraphrase--the mission/vision/values of your institution), these aspirations can serve as the foundation for establishing principles of practice for your organization. An ideal mission or vision might even provide all the behavioral guidance that is needed--but this model is yet to be crafted, or at least widely publicized.

Guidelines far establishing principles of practice

A principles of practice document must be arrived at collaboratively, be subject to regular review and revision, but be carefully crafted with the intention of its becoming a time-honored cornerstone of the association. Unlike a mission, a principles of practice reaches beyond the aspirations of the organization to encompass the individual, day-to-day behaviors of its members.

So, although the document might begin with an affirmation such as, "We, the members of the Paragon Medical Group, believe in the integrity and dignity of each of our partners, our staff, and our patients," it should go on to illustrate the ways in which this belief will translate into everyday practices and procedures. Behavioral parameters are suggested by Pfifferling in his work on reducing the fallout from "disruptive physicians." (4) On the other hand, the intent of the document is to establish principles, not to prescribe specific behavior, (which would predictably be a futile exercise, given the unequivocal lack of 'herd instinct" among physicians).

Examples that might be adopted by group members as part of their principles of practice include:

1. We will treat ourselves and our employees and patients with the same respect with which we ourselves expect to be treated.

2. We will communicate with each other directly and, where appropriate, in privacy.

3. We will acknowledge our differences of opinion and practice styles and value the contribution each member makes to the community we share.

4. When we become aware of a very different practice style of a partner, we will endeavor to learn the basis for this practice and to help each other to evaluate the efficacy and safety of that particular practice.

Each principle must be specific enough to unambiguously describe, but not so specific as to prescribe, behavior.

Although specific behaviors are not usually prescribed in the principles of practice, It is perfectly appropriate at times and in some settings to proscribe them, especially if the behaviors are recurring problems that the group has experienced, or that some members bring to the table and legitimately fear based on practice experiences. For example, groups may decide to adopt a principle requiring that partners not discuss with non partners any conflicts they are having, at least not until they have attempted to resolve the issue directly with the partner concerned. It should be noted parenthetically that, as with any directive, proscriptions are often more palatable when they are framed positively. Thus, the proscription just described could be worded: "When we have a problem with another partner, we will not discuss It with anyone not a partner until we have made a bona fide attempt to discuss the issue with the partner involved."

The principles should also incorporate a specific, agreed-upon mechanism for the group to handle situations In which It is perceived that an individual practitioner is stepping outside the norms of behavior. One group might ask the individual to provide an explanation and an action plan. Another might provide for a review panel or define a stepwise approach to enforcement, depending on the number of concerns or the nature of the behavior. But the keys to successfully implementing these principles of practice are for everyone to participate in crafting them, to formally adopt them, and to provide a democratic way of revising them when appropriate, excepting such time that a particular alleged infringement is being investigated.

Conflict management in practice

Not infrequently, successful work related conflict management can have direct effects in other areas of life. One recent example comes to mind. A surgeon had experienced some personal anger management problems in his past, which had resulted in a less than satisfactory partnership (since dissolved) with another surgeon. He later hired an associate with many admirable qualities and practice skills that would be extremely beneficial to the practice. Although their relationship and the association were generally proceeding well, some anger management problems surfaced in the associate, who was soon hoping to become a full partner.

Sensing the inherent risk, the founding partner requested that the two of them meet with neutral parties to help them draw up a "pre-partnership agreement," a preamble to establishing principles of practice for their partnership (if it was consummated). We visited the practice, discussed the concerns with both parties (separately as well as together), and helped them to craft an agreement that was to guide their behavior in the months leading up to the anticipated partnership contract. Among other provisions was a covenant not to express anger without assurance of privacy and notice of no less than five minutes; and to curtail the use of the term "boss" (acknowledging that slips would occur) after the date of the pre-partnership agreement. Other less directive provisions included weekly sharing of concerns and frustrations, feedback to each other and to staff, communication, negotiation, and conflict resolution guidelines.

The partnership was formed, the practice is thriving, and both partners feel that their life skills have been enhanced as a result of this process. The new partner has subsequently consulted us to learn conflict management techniques that he can apply in his own family (especially towards raising teenagers) and to gain control over some potentially life threatening anger responses he was exhibiting in the non-clinical setting. He was continuously experiencing road rage, and had a near fatal complication from a common stress-related illness that was undiagnosed and untreated because he refused to discuss his health with those who showed concern.

Learning negotiation

An unanticipated benefit of the process of creating a principles of practice is that physicians can safely practice negotiation skills with each other during the drafting process, thereby enhancing another undeveloped aspect of our training. Sure, we negotiate regularly with family, patients, and staff (all of whom are safely "below us" in established hierarchies)...but negotiation with peers about potentially emotional subjects is not something with which we have a great deal of day-to-day experience. In fact, for most of us the very prospect is sufficient to trigger the "flight" portion of the classical stress response. Successfully negotiating mutually acceptable norms of professional behavior with our partners, once completed, is a small victory that will inspire confidence that we can be equally successful in the peer negotiation process when inevitable conflicts occur within the practice.

Using principles at practice far conflict resolution

Which brings us to conflict resolution. The principles of practice provide an effective avenue for redressing behaviors that fail outside agreed upon norms. (Of course, this mechanism should not be considered a substitute for reporting or disciplinary action in the case of suspected impairment or unethical behaviors). Just reminding a member of the document and group covenant may be sufficient to prompt a self-corrective action. If this is not effective, the document itself can specify the next steps to be taken. The principles of practice is also an effective way to apply peer pressure and minimize collusion and faction formation among partners. And an emotionally unbalanced, narcissistic, or sociopathic physician may simply ignore all pressure short of sanctions or legal action. But this is what contracts and courts are for.

If applying the principles of practice is not an effective deterrent, such as in the case where legitimate interpretations of behaviors differ between individuals who are experiencing conflict, the next logical step in many cases will be mediation. As others describe in this issue of The physician clan Executive, the mediation process is a non-adversarial approach to conflict resolution that is extraordinary for its ability to allow parties to a conflict to synthesize their own solutions. The creativity that emerges from this process often amazes and invariably empowers the participants. This delivers another win-win, both for the organization and the individuals. Successful mediation of an inter-physician conflict not only produces a solution that is often better than the status quo before the conflict, but inspires confidence in the individuals in their ability to solve problems amicably, and In other members of the organization that the system works as it is designed to do, and that self-determination is p ossible at least in this realm of their practice environment.

Conflict intercession

If mediation can be used so effectively for conflict resolution, could it be applied prophylactically? Absolutely. Because what is mediation, anyway? If you dissect its fundamental components, mediation is a process that takes negotiation to its highest level, employing a neutral party to help hurt and angry people communicate effectively and draft collectively a solution that is greater than the sum of the problems.

The fact that mediation works so well, even with emotionally vulnerable parties (which in this case is usually manifested as angry, demonstrative, and obstinate physicians who would clearly rather be doing rectal examinations), tells us that emotionally healthy parties can learn to negotiate before a problem occurs (as in collectively creating a principles of practice), or even in the early stages of an escalating problem (as in, "Let's have lunch and try to figure out a way to make things better between us.")

Physicians who have learned negotiation through an experience with mediation or from other sources, such as books and conference, are eager to refine these skills because they allow them to remain in control of their destinies, while exhibiting behaviors they can be proud of. Those who have learned through these smaller negotiations that conflict resolution is not necessarily a difficult or threatening situation are prepared to use the new skills to enhance all aspects of their lives. The unconscious mentoring of conflict management skills alone can help to transform the workplace, if not the world.