Whose Decision Is It About Which Positions Are Filled?

During a recent economic turndown that impacted the entire country, University Medical Center was forced into cut-back management mode. With less funding coming from state government to support the institution, every department was required to tighten its budget, new hires were deferred, and everyone was expected to pitch in to keep the institution afloat. It had been a rough couple of years and one that was very stressful for the entire staff. As the economy began to recover and the Medical Centers fiscal situation began to ease, a few new positions were made available. Each of the four major divisions (Patient Care, Finance, Support Services, and Human Resources) was allocated a single position to fill, with the decision about allocation needing approval of all of the division VPs. Each VP was asked to provide justification for their particular area. Linda, the VP of Patient Care, reviewed her numbers and decided that the position in her division was most needed in the Imaging Department. While the Lab, Diagnostic Services, Rehab, Nursing, and Quality departments were also shorthanded, Imaging had experienced the highest volume increases and was generating the most revenue with the fewest number of employees, as it had experienced the most attrition during the hiring freeze and was in her opinion most in need. The other VPs concurred with and approved Lindas recommendation. The next day Linda arrived at work bright and early, with the goal of preparing for the regular biweekly department directors meeting scheduled for later that day. She had sent out the meeting agenda, which noted that Patient Care had received one new position and that it had been allocated to Imaging. She had just gotten her coffee, when there was a knock at her door. Cheryl, the Nursing Director, came in and barely sat down before she burst out, How could you give the one position in Patient Care to Imaging? And, how is it possible that the only revenue-generating division in the hospital got only one new position? All the positions should have been allocated to us. Taken somewhat aback and being unprepared for the conversation, Linda explained the rationale for the decision; that the process had been shared, discussed among and approved by all of the VPs; that morale was low across the Medical Center; and that the idea was to share the positions, thereby beginning to meet the needs of all divisions. She also stated, I understand that every one of the Patient Care departments is hard pressed at this point and needs more staff. I also empathize with all the divisions who have had to struggle to do more with less. Please understand that the decision was made in the best interest of the hospital as a whole. Cheryl was clearly very upset and would have none of it. She shouted at Linda, You dont do enough to support and go to bat for Patient Care and Nursing. Linda resented that and quickly replied, I spend the majority of my time supporting our needs. I always go to bat for all departments. I cant believe you are accusing me this way. Cheryl kept up her attack, saying, You should have consulted with me before you made this decision. I should have had the opportunity to justify why Nursing had a greater need than Imaging. At this point Linda had had enough. She realized that nothing she was going to say or do was going to assuage Cheryls anger. She also recognized that this was typical of Cheryls behavior, having seen such outbursts many times before. She calmly asked Cheryl to settle down, to leave her office, and to rethink her position before the directors meeting. She closed with, Lets discuss this further when all of the department directors are together.

After reading the above excerpt answer the following:

1. What leadership fixes could have been used to either prevent or resolve this conflict? Provide examples to support this.

2. Where would you put A. LInda and B. Cheryl in the Thomas-Kilman Resolution style? Explain in depth

Leadership fixes for conflict: 1. Create individual role clarity 2. Make it acceptable for people to have and express differences of opinion 3. Solicit input on out-of-date or dysfunctional policies / procedures. 4. Avoid "Artificial Harmony", i.e. sweeping problems under the rug only to have them appear again later when the conflict will be worse. 5. Take immediate action when conflict arises 6. Know yourself - your personal SWOT Thomas-Kilman Conflict Resolution Model: The balance between assertiveness and cooperation Assertiveness = The strength of a person's desire to satisfy their own concerns and needs in pursuing a desired outcome. Can be aggressive or laid back. Cooperation = A person's willingness to satisfy concerns and needs of others who are pursuing their own desired outcomes. Thomas- Kilman 5 Resolution Styles: 1. Competition: Win-lose. Highly assertive, not cooperative 2. Accommodation: Roles over. Not assertive, highly cooperative 3. Avoidance: Head in the sand. Neither assertive nor cooperative 4. Compromise: Give and take, neither side happy. Assertiveness = Cooperation 5. Collaboration: Win-Win. Highly assertive, highly collaborative