Recently, Syed, a director of an engineering firm, had to resolve a real workplace dispute that emerged when managers of the firm's two separate divisions (Geotechnical and Environmental) disputed over using the laboratory services concurrently. The incident began when the lab manager for the business approached Syed and asked for help. He claimed that despite requests to prioritise jobs from the geotechnical and environmental departments and deadlines-driven instructions, he is unable to do so because of his workload. He can only choose one of the options at once, and his decision put him in conflict with one of the department heads. He didn't know how to handle the matter because both of his managers sign his annual performance report and he wanted to grow in the company. Syed respects his work and sees him as a committed team player.
Here are some actions Syed made to settle this argument in a way that was beneficial rather than harmful.
1. Syed started by speaking with both departments.

Syed requested that the managers and the lab manager pick a time that works for everyone to meet. He made sure to avoid disruptions by setting up the conference room for the meeting.

2. Syed focused on the conflict rather than the people.

Syed focused on the point where the disagreement arises and spoke about a specific case rather than generalising the issue.

3. Syed closely observed everyone.

He listened intently to what the managers of the Geotech and environmental divisions, as well as the lab supervisor, had to say before responding. He didn't say anything at all when they were explaining their issues. After they expressed their issue, He restated everything they said to make sure He understood them.

4. Syed identified the areas of consensus and dispute.

In the conclusion, Syed described the areas of agreement and dispute. He decided that they needed to recruit more staff in order to deal with the problem and avoid a backlog at the lab. Syed questioned whether or not all of the stockholders agreed with the analysis, asking for details such as how many employees and what level of expertise will be required in new hires, how long it would take to assign a task to the lab (FIFO method is used to operate the samples in the lab), and how crucial the job is regardless of the department involved (A separate line for rush samples in established with dedicated staff in the lab to deal with the rush samples).

5. They developed an action plan.

After the meeting, we concentrated on the goals for the future and set up subsequent meetings to continue talking about the same topic, if any.

6. Follow Up

In the meeting, Syed makes sure that everyone complies with the plan.

 

Questions:

1.Recommendation?

2. Situation?

3. What should we do to complete the tasks of two departments on time?

4 Analysis?

5. Expected Outcome?

6. Alternative Results?

 

NOTE: Answers should be short which can be used in presentation