Functional and Dysfunctional Conflict - Assignment Example

Case Study Answer 1: The problem with the liberal party in the early part of the 2000s was the fact that the party was dominated by two different people with differing personalities and hence differing styles of leadership. One could identify Costello’s leadership traits as being essentially based on the charisma of the man while that of John Howard was essentially based on the transformative nature of his leadership. The problem here was simple-with two differing leaders within the same party more often than not there would be the development of two differing groups within the political party-this can also be understood in terms of the development of two warring factions within one party. This would then essentially mean that the members of the team would work not just against the opposition but also against members of their own party, leading to a weakening of the group or the team itself. This would also strengthen the stand of the opposition. Some of the most basic factors of success where teamwork is concerned would be the existence of shared goals to accomplish, cohesive and knowledge based furthering of one another’s abilities along with mutual sharing of available resources (Harris, Hurst, Bago and Biley, 2006). The development of factions within political parties and the impact that faction development has on the overall efficiency of the party functioning have been studies in detail (Baer and Bositis, 1988). Most scholars seem to argue that as opposed to organizations factions in political parties further positive ends in as much as they retain opportunities to negotiate, transact and compromise. The issue in this case however was more than just a factor of negotiation, given the fact that Howard had lost the support of the cabinet and Costello was being perceived as his heir apparent. The fact that he refused to step down was seen by many as a breach of trust, which means that in essence where Costello is concerned, Howard became a man who trampled ambitions to remain at the pinnacle of power. The fact of the mater remains that all evidence points to the deal made between Costello and Howard at the beginning of the first Howard reign in 1996. The fact that Howard did not honor his promise of stepping down after a term and half, signifies a breach of trust within the team, especially given the fact that trust is a crucial element of effective leadership that can impact followers in ways ranging from the mundane to the exotic (Burke, et. Al., 2007). This would automatically lead to conflict within teams as manifested by Costello’s behavior between 2003 and 2006, where he came out in open support of same sex marriages and withdrew support from After a key election promise to extend the Medicare safety net. It has to be understood that the erosion of trust was a natural course of being in the party given the fact that it is a positive expectation that another person will not through words, actions, or discussion act opportunistically (Nootenbloom, 2002). Positive expectation assumes knowledge and familiarity with the other person/party. This is based on experience and takes time to build. The fact that Howard refused to step down was in direct contrast with expectations and was therefore a surprise as opposed the requisite of trust that slates knowledge as an essential. This comes from the history of interaction. It exists when the employee has an adequate knowledge about someone and can predict the leader’s behavior. Predictability enhances trust. Answer 2: There has been a suggested relationship that exists between trust within teams and the relativity of performance indicators. It also has to be remembered that a leaders and expected traits within him would exhibit in terms of the level of trust and respect for him and his decisions within a given team. A leader is one that has managerial authority and a level of influence over the decisions and actions of the members of his team (Kook, 2007). By this account therefore the most often come across manifestation of the leader in modern times is the corporate manager or in this case the political head of a party, seeking in turn to become the head of the government. A leader would thus be expected to have the drive to succeed that could inspire the team, he needs to be honest and impartial, and a leader that is not intelligent would arouse derision instead of awe and acceptance (Robins and Koulter, 2002). Most team members like Costello that are motivated intelligent, competent and ambitious individuals have their own perceived sense of what they think they ought to be able to achieve in the long run. In a situation like the Costello faced in 2003, it becomes apparent that a situation where the leader would become demotivated would set in. This would also then have an impact on his ability to contribute in his salted capacity to the team because of his perception in terms of the contribution that he ought to have been making to the team. Trust would therefore be both the specific expectation that another’s actions will be beneficial and not detrimental and the generalized ability to take for granted to take under trust, a vast array of features of social order. One would have to clarify at this juncture that the qualities of successful leadership are the very qualities that would arouse trust in the leadership as well. In terms of trust, the ability of the leader to inspire respect is also important. Given the fact that Howard went back on his work irrespective of reasons and justifications, from Costello’s point of view, the idea would remain that Howard went back on his word and the mutually accepted agreement, cheating Costello out of his perceived future to be the Liberal’s leader. No team member would listen to, trust in or accept the commands of a leader that he does not respect. In the absence of trust on has to remember that the ability of the team to overcome conflict becomes significantly damaged (Rundey and Flanagan, 2010). Answer 3:  When comparing leadership styles that differentiated Howard from Peter Costello, it would be interesting to refer to a survey that was carried out in Australia in 2005, comparing politicians to dog breeds. It says tonnes about their respective leadership and personality styles that most Australians chose to liken John Howard with a fox terrier or the bulldog; Peter Costello was compared with a Labrador or a cocker spaniel (Hartcher, 2007). The interpretation of the survey was simple, politicians are likeable when they are reliable like work-dogs, they project feelings of safety while the Labrador and the cocker spaniel are good for playing in the backyard but not worthy watchdogs, meaning that Costello was good for looking at and as a had palpable charisma but was not really a favorable candidate in terms of him being a national leader or the Prime Minister.   It is in this context that one could answer questions on the leadership styles defining John Howard and Peter Costello. John Howard was in essence a transformative leader, while Costello’s leadership traits were driven by the charisma of the man. A charismatic leader is one who leads on the strength of his charisma and some outstanding personality traits. (DuBrin, 2009). For a charismatic leader to be success he should necessarily have a vision, are full of energy and are vastly action oriented. The problem with these leaders however is the tendency of risk romanticization and the fact that since they work on individual strength and not on consensus development, they are having a tendency to go wrong. These leaders also become larger than the organization, and larger than life. The transformative leader on the other hand, is one that seeks to bring about positive changes in his field of work and area management by implementing slow changes. The strategies that manifest within his style of leadership are well thought out and planned. This form of a leadership situation is driven by the need of goal fulfillment. Costello therefore comes across as someone who was condescending and very aware of the merits of his own being as opposed to the more humble approach at self-determination taken by Howard. It is this very factor that makes Howard seem more attractive than Costello who despite all his charisma had an element of being thoroughly unpredictable, often with a smirk on his face. Howard on the other hand was reliable and trustworthy making him the ideal Prime Ministerial candidate while Costello was seen as being good for the role of the deputy more than the leader. Most studies treat political parties like any other voluntary organization-the idea essentially however remains that party mobilization leads to greater political participation a thesis in political behavior that long pre-dates the concern about social capital. It is in this context that one would have to understand the issues dealing with trust that arise between Costello and Howard. Given the fact that a political party works in the same manner as any other organization where the fulfillment of individual goals is concerned, the nature of trust at stake would also be the generalized trust that reflects an optimistic world view. The biggest ramification of the erosion of this trust in this context would manifest itself in the inability on Costello’s part to be able to continue in his capacity as a dedicated junior. He would resent Howard, thereby losing the essence of successful teamwork-taking joy in pother’s success. Answer 4: Power and leadership are closely connected and highly integrated concepts. This is because power is one of the vehicles by which a leader influences followers into taking action. The idea in essence is that in order to lead and to manage, a leader has to have the ability to acquire, possess and use power (West, 1994). There have been many attempts at describing the relationships between leadership and power, in terms of readiness levels of followers and power base use. It has been indicated that the readiness of the followers dictates the style of leadership that is likely to be a success, along with the power base that is expected to most successfully enhance the follower behavior in terms of making its acquiesce the will of the leader. The ability to combine these concepts is able to maximize the leader’s probability of success. Readiness is the ability and willingness of individuals and the willingness of individuals or groups to take responsibility for directing their own behavior in a situation. There appears to be a direct relationship between the levels of readiness in individuals and groups and the power base type that has a high probability of effectiveness for use with them (Huber, 2006). Readiness is a task-specific concept in terms of the fact that at the lowest levels of readiness, coercive power is most appropriate. As people move to higher readiness levels the followers have competence and confidence and they are not responsive to expert power. If power is the basic energy needed for the initiation and sustenance of action, then power is a quality without which a leader cannot lead. Power is a fundamental element for leadership, in that leadership might be the wise use of power. This is especially true for transformative leadership (Bennis and Nanus, 1985). Power need is highly desirable in leaders and managers. This is because of the fact that power is necessary in influencing others. Assertiveness and self-confidence are associated with power and leadership. Leadership may be characterized as power in the service of others (Kouzes and Posner, 2007). The idea in leadership therefore needs to be the perception of power as an integral part of professional roles in terms of management, problem solving and team management. The requirement in terms of the leadership therefore is the willingness and ability to take on a power role and to extend the use of power bases. In this context therefore the difference between leadership and power would be that power is the entity that is desired by one and all is what everybody wants and can get even if they have no leadership qualities. Nevertheless, leadership is the variable that one has in built, it cannot usually be taught or imparted. A leader is at most times a powerful person, but a Powerful person not necessarily can be a leader. A Leader leads and people follow him willingly. Whereas, a Powerful person demands people to follow him and people are forced to follow him, unwillingly and helplessly. Answer 5: Leaders who wish to secure policy or operational need to persuade both their political followers and the people who work in the government (the bureaucracy) to accept and carry out their proposals. This may entail bringing about more or less radical changes in the opinions, attitudes and habitual work practices of the staff of the government. Such changes of attitude cannot be achieved simply by hanging the formal structures of the organizational culture, or even through the issuance of the appropriate commands. For leaders to success in changing people’s attitudes and behaviors there must be a generation of support for the changes that are being proposed along with the determination to insist that their decisions are complied with. The support that ensures that the leader is able to meet these criteria and many more is determined by the power base enjoyed he enjoys. Different leaders enjoy different power bases. A dictatorial leader would for example owe his power base to his variables such as the military, ideology or even to brute power. Democratic leaders like Costello and Howard on the other hand would owe their power base to the popular referendum in the form of support from the public that they govern, political acceptance in terms of the members of the political parties they head and consensus among big business in terms of lobbying support for their cause. The difference in this case would be that Costello’s power base would be those that believe in a leader who is charismatic and promising. This would automatically then comprise of the younger more flamboyant elements within the Liberal party. Howard on the other hand would appeal to sensibilities that are a lot more conservative and see leadership in terms of the one that is competent and is able to lead from the front in terms of defining party goals and ensuring that the party is able to come back to power, the reforms that these elements seek are less flamboyant but more effective in terms of dealing with the everyday needs of the electorate. Answer 6: Functional and Dysfunctional Conflict It is essential, if one is to determine whether the conflict between Howard and Costello is to be classified as being functional or dysfunctional that one first and foremost identifies the characteristics of functional and dysfunctional conflicts. Functional conflict is a reality in cases when conflict is supportive of the aims the targets of the larger team subdivision, association or society (Wilson and Hannah, 1993).  This means in essence that the conflict could have an impact that is positive on the quality of work being done and the function towards the improvement of the larger team targets.  This happens by virtue of the fact that the conflict is characterized by the involvement of those that are in fact interested in solving the problem, who are willing to listen to one another, and who attempt to seek mutually advantageous solutions.  Given the fact that parties involved in conflict are ready to work as partners in order to take on the issue at hand, this category of a conflict situation is at times helpful in bringing out solutions to problems in terms of the emergence of ideas and styles that are unique and individual and above the mundane quality of the group think situation. It therefore leads the group top consider more options, be creative and in getting people interested in addressing the issue at hand, and ultimately lead to more effective decisions. Dysfunctional conflict on the other hand is made up of disputes and conflicting parties each trying to out do the other ion terms of achievements and target fulfillment. This is a typical characteristic of two people or two groups that ate loath to work together. Many a times, this conflict take son personalized dimensions, leading to mutual dislike within a team-this ultimately has manifestations in terms of it growing very rapidly. This is why it becomes important that conflicts are addressed as they arise (Lussier and Achua, 2009).  Dysfunctional conflict can bring about many negative outcomes within an organization or community including decreased quality of communication, discontent, damaged relationships, decreased productivity, reduced group cohesiveness and performance, and the inability to achieve goals.   In the context of this particular case, there is a grey area wherein it would be difficult to determine whether the conflict was dysfunctional or functional given the fact that the conflict happened in the context of national and party leadership. At first glance one could safely assume that the conflict was dysfunctional because the at the very roots of it was Costello’s ambition to be the next PM and Howard’s resilience in terms of human not wanting to let it go. The nature of the conflict was such that it divided the party into two factions both trying to secure personal ends within which the larger aim of securing good governance and ensuring that the party remains free of corruption and intrigue seem to have been lost. In the context of this case however, one has to remember that the conflict happened with a perspective to greater good given the fact that there is still a question mark over Costello’s prospective ability to be the leader that the Australia in general and the Liberals in particular wanted him be. The fact that he later quit was a dysfunctional aspect of the conflict but the fact that Howard stayed was positive. In conclusion one would have to characterize the conflict as being dysfunctional   References: Conflict management and resolution. Retrieved April 17, 2010, http://www.doctorholmes.net/conflictmanagement.html   Lussier, R. N, and Achua, C. F, (2009). Leadership: Theory, Application, & Skill Development‎ . CengageBrain. p 210   Wilson, G. L,  and Hannah, M. S, (1993). Groups in context: leadership and participation in small groups‎. CengageBrain. p263   Hartcher, P, (2007). Bipolar nation: how to win the 2007 election. Black Inc. Pp2-3   DuBrin, A. J, (2007). Leadership: Research Findings, Practice, and Skills. Cengage Brain. Pp70-72 Barns, G. (2003). What’s wrong with the Liberal Party. Cambridge Press. Pp90-92 Huber, D, (2010). Leadership and nursing care management. Elsiever Health. pp90-92 West, M. A, (1994). Effective teamwork: practical lessons from organizational research. Wiley Books. pp84-87 Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper Row.  Kouzes, J. M, and Posner, B. Z, (2007). The leadership challenge. Wiley books. pp27-32 Nootenbloom, B., (2002). Trust: forms, foundations, functions, failures and figures. Barnes and Nobles. p36 Burke C S,. Sims D E,. Lazzara L E and Salas E, (2007). Trust in leadership: A multi-level review and integration’, The Leadership Quarterly, 18(6). pp606-632 Rundey, C. E, and Flanagan, T. A, (2010). Developing Your Conflict Competence: A Hands-On Guide for Leaders, Managers. Wiley Books. pp92-94 Erdem F, Ozen J and Atsan N, (2003). ‘The relationship between trust and team performance’. Journal of Work Study, 52(7). p338 Elcock, H. J, (2001). Political Leadership. Edward Elgar Publishing. p115 Read More