Combine all three into one final Cohesive finished product. Feedback for milestone One Good job describing the communication practices however I don’t see where you id
Combine all three into one final Cohesive finished product.
Feedback for milestone One
Good job describing the communication practices however I don't see where you identified if they are explicit/explicit.
Feedback for Milestone Two
Good job identifying "productivity above all" there are others heuristics that are relevant consider identifying those as you matriculate through the assignments.
good job identifying inter-cultural clash as a major reason. Was religious beliefs the only impression of bias? Consider digging deeper for future milestones.
Feedback for Milestone Three
good job identifying some key issues, provide additional details describing the importance of each
Final Project Guidelines and Rubric.html
WCM 620 Final Project Guidelines and Rubric
Overview
Advising colleagues, employees, managers, and senior leaders on actions that minimize organizational discord is key in creating a more effective organizational culture. For the final project for this course, assume you are an employee relations specialist. You have been asked by a senior human resources business partner to create a “summary of findings” that conveys key information from a fact-finding assignment related to a former employee’s potential law suit. Your task is to read the final project case study that includes a transcript of interviews previously conducted by your colleague and produce a paper that analyzes the emotional cause of the employee conflict, details the personal biases of each conflict participant, identifies best practices by which the affected department can rebuild trust, addresses the legal context of the issue, and recommends actions to mitigate the problem. It is important to cultivate the expertise necessary to productively engage in a conflict situation and effectively facilitate its resolution. This expertise is critical both to creating positive change in the workplace and in advancing a human resource professional’s career.
The project is divided into three milestones, which will be submitted at various points throughout the course to scaffold learning and ensure quality final submissions. These milestones will be submitted in Modules Three, Five, and Seven. In addition to the critical elements from the three course milestones, required critical elements for the final project are found in other assignments within the course. Use information from the course assignments to inform your final submission. The final product will be submitted in Module Nine.
In this assignment, you will demonstrate your mastery of the following course outcomes:
- Analyze perceptive and communicatory elements of interpersonal conflicts for how they could be changed to de-escalate conflict between employees
- Analyze heuristics based on beliefs, past experiences, and cultural norms that impact workplace interactions for informing conflict management strategies
- Recommend individual strategies for managing differing cultural perspectives applying contemporary conflict resolution concepts
- Analyze stakeholder communications for their implications in building trust among organizational stakeholders in conflict situations
- Assess the legal context of organizational conflicts for recommending appropriate risk-minimizing strategies
Prompt
For this final project, you will construct a summary of findings paper, based on the case materials provided. Your paper should be well-structured, clear, and concise, containing each of the sections below. To complete this assignment, you will use information in the Final Project Case Study document as well as these guidelines.
Specifically, the following critical elements must be addressed:
- Overview: Summarize the pattern of facts leading up to this interpersonal conflict, identifying the stakeholders in the conflict.
- Conflict Analysis: In this section, you will analyze the transcripts provided and determine how stakeholders’ self-perception and communication practices influenced the conflict. Be sure to address the following:
- Assess how the stakeholders’ self-perception influenced the conflict. Provide specific examples to support your assessment. In other words, how might the involved stakeholders’ self-perceptions be at odds with how others see them?
- Describe the communication practices, implicit or explicit, that were used. What implications did they have for the conflict?
- Assess how communication practices might be changed to de-escalate the conflict. Provide specific examples to support your assessment.
- Analyzing Heuristics to De-escalate Conflict: In this section, you will analyze the heuristics in the transcripts provided and determine how they impacted the interactions in the workplace.
- Appraise the heuristics you found in the transcripts that were the most relevant to the conflict in this case. Support your appraisal with specific examples. For example, was there a bias such as “more is better” or “faster is better”?
- Determine how this heuristic resulted in impressions of bias that negatively impacted workplace interactions in this case. Support your determination with specific examples. For example, did a heuristic of “people who look like me do a better job” result in a perception of discrimination?
- Determine what techniques your colleague might recommend to help the stakeholders to use their past experiences to positively benefit similar interactions moving forward. Support your determination with specific examples.
- Creating a More Effective Organizational Culture: In this section, you will analyze the transcripts provided to determine the influence of cultural differences on the conflict.
- Analyze how the stakeholders’ cultural perspectives affected their points of view in this conflict. Support your analysis with relevant examples.
- Describe instances in which you see a match or gaps between the former employee and organizational culture. Support your description with specific examples.
- Recommend strategies that individual stakeholders can use to deal with employees who have disparate cultural perspectives. Justify your recommendation(s) with appropriate conflict resolution concepts.
- Building Common Ground: In this section, you will primarily analyze the transcripts provided to find instances when your coworker employed communication skills to manage the situation, collect relevant information, and build common ground. Then, you will identify practices through which your team can rebuild trust in the affected department.
- Referring to the transcripts provided, assess the utility of the open-ended questions that were used for eliciting useful information. Support your assessment with specific examples.
- Identify the points during the transcribed conversations in which the interviewer verbally summarized key ideas, describing the importance of each occurrence to the communications in the interviews.
- Determine how the impact of the former employee’s actions was at odds with his intent. Support your determination with specific examples based on the transcripts provided.
- Identify practices by which the affected department can rebuild trust. Support your identification with accepted conflict resolution practices.
- Dispute Resolution and Legal Ramifications: In this final section, you will determine the best course of action for resolving the conflict and provide your recommendations for moving forward.
- What laws are applicable in this situation and how are they applicable? Support your response with specific examples.
- Describe the benefits and risks of direct negotiations, mediation, and arbitration between the stakeholders. Support your description with specific examples.
- Recommend appropriate risk-minimizing strategies for your conflict negotiations based on your analysis of potential means of dispute resolution and legal ramifications.
Milestones
Milestone One: Overview and Conflict Analysis In Module Three, you will submit a draft of the first two sections of your summative assessment. Read the transcripts provided for you for this case analysis. This milestone will be graded with the Milestone One Rubric.
Milestone Two: Analysis of Heuristics In Module Five, based on the transcripts you read in Module Three and the Module Five reading, you will analyze the heuristics of the transcripts and determine how they impacted the interactions in the workplace. Additionally, you will determine the influence of cultural differences on the conflict. This milestone will be graded with the Milestone Two Rubric.
Milestone Three: Building Common Ground In Module Seven, based on the transcripts provided, you will look for instances in which the characters employed communication to manage the situation, collect relevant information, and build common ground. Then, you will identify practices through which the team can rebuild trust. Finally, you will determine the best course of action for resolving the conflict and provide your recommendations for moving forward. This milestone will be graded with the Milestone Three Rubric.
Final Submission: Summary of Findings In Module Nine, you will submit your final project. It should be a complete, polished artifact containing all of the critical elements of the final product. It should reflect the incorporation of feedback gained throughout the course. This submission will be graded with the Final Project Rubric.
What to Submit
Your summary of findings paper should be 6 to 8 pages in length, double-spaced, using 12-point Times New Roman font and APA formatting.
Final Project Rubric
| Criteria | Exemplary (100%) | Proficient (90%) | Needs Improvement (70%) | Not Evident (0%) | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overview: Pattern of Facts | Meets “Proficient” criteria and summary demonstrates a complex grasp of the pattern of facts leading up to the conflict | Summarizes the pattern of facts leading up to this interpersonal conflict, identifying the stakeholders in the conflict | Summarizes the pattern of facts leading up to this interpersonal conflict, identifying the stakeholders in the conflict, but summary is verbose or contains inaccuracies | Does not summarize the pattern of facts leading up to this interpersonal conflict, identifying the stakeholders in the conflict | 5 |
| Conflict Analysis: Stakeholders’ Self-Perception | Meets “Proficient” criteria and examples provided demonstrate a complex grasp of how stakeholders’ self-perception influences conflict | Assesses how the stakeholders’ self-perception influenced the conflict and provides specific examples to support assessment | Assesses how the stakeholders’ self-perception influenced the conflict and provides examples to support assessment, but assessment is cursory or contains inaccuracies, or examples are not specific or relevant to argument | Does not assess how the stakeholders’ self-perception influenced the conflict | 6 |
| Conflict Analysis: Communication | Meets “Proficient” criteria and descriptions make especially cogent connections between the communication practices and the conflict | Describes the communication practices, implicit or explicit, that were used and their implications for the conflict | Describes the communication practices, implicit or explicit, that were used and their implications for the conflict, but description is cursory or contains inaccuracies | Does not describe the communication practices, implicit or explicit, that were used | 6 |
| Conflict Analysis: De-escalate the Conflict | Meets “Proficient” criteria and examples provided demonstrate a complex grasp of how altering communication practices can de-escalate conflict | Assesses how the communication practices might be changed to de-escalate the conflict, providing specific examples to support assessment | Assesses how the communication practices might be changed to de-escalate the conflict, providing examples to support assessment, but assessment is cursory or contains inaccuracies, or examples are not specific or relevant to argument | Does not assess how the communication practices might be changed to de-escalate the conflict | 6 |
| Analyzing Heuristics: Heuristics in the Transcripts | Meets “Proficient” criteria and examples provided demonstrate a complex grasp of what makes heuristics relevant | Appraises the heuristics found in the transcripts that were the most relevant to the conflict in this case and supports appraisal with specific examples | Appraises the heuristics found in the transcripts that were most relevant to conflict and supports appraisal with examples, but appraisal is cursory or contains inaccuracies, or examples are not specific or relevant to argument | Does not appraise the heuristics found in the transcripts that were most relevant to conflict | 6 |
| Analyzing Heuristics: Impressions of Bias | Meets “Proficient” criteria and supporting examples make sophisticated connections between impressions of bias and workplace interactions | Determines how this heuristic resulted in impressions of bias that negatively impacted workplace interactions in this case and supports determination with specific examples | Determines how this heuristic resulted in impressions of bias that negatively impacted workplace interactions and supports determination with examples, but determination lacks clarity or contains inaccuracies, or examples are not specific or relevant to argument | Does not determine how this heuristic resulted in impressions of bias that negatively impacted workplace interactions | 6 |
| Analyzing Heuristics: Positively Benefit | Meets “Proficient” criteria and supporting examples demonstrate a complex grasp of how stakeholders can use prior experiences to positively benefit workplace interactions | Determines how the stakeholders in the interactions could have used their past experiences to positively benefit workplace interactions and supports determination with specific examples | Determines how the stakeholders in the interactions could have used their past experiences to positively benefit workplace interactions and supports determination with examples, but determination lacks clarity or contains inaccuracies, or supporting examples are not specific or relevant to argument | Does not determine how the stakeholders in the interactions could have used their past experiences to positively benefit workplace interactions | 6 |
| Organizational Culture: Cultural Perspectives | Meets “Proficient” criteria and examples make sophisticated connections between stakeholders’ cultural perspectives and their points of view in the conflict | Analyzes how the stakeholders’ cultural perspectives affected their points of view in the conflict and supports analysis with specific examples | Analyzes how the stakeholders’ cultural perspectives affected their points of view in the conflict and supports analysis with examples, but analysis is cursory or contains inaccuracies or examples are not specific or relevant to argument | Does not analyze how the stakeholders’ cultural perspectives affected their points of view in the conflict | 6 |
| Organizational Culture: Employee and Organizational Culture | Meets “Proficient” criteria and supporting examples demonstrate keen insight into what does or does not make employees a good fit for organizations | Describes instances in which a match or gaps can be found between the former employee and organizational culture and supports description with specific examples | Describes instances in which a match or gaps can be found between the former employee and organizational culture and support description with examples, but description is cursory or contains inaccuracies or examples are not specific or relevant to argument | Does not describe instances in which a match or gaps can be found between the former employee and organizational culture | 6 |
| Organizational Culture: Strategies | Meets “Proficient” criteria and justification makes especially cogent connections between conflict resolution concepts and employees who have disparate cultural perspectives | Recommends strategies that individual stakeholders can use to deal with employees who have disparate cultural perspectives, justifying recommendations with appropriate conflict resolution concepts | Recommends strategies that individual stakeholders can use to deal with employees who have disparate cultural perspectives, but recommendations are cursory, illogical, or are not justified with appropriate conflict resolution concepts | Does not recommend strategies that individual stakeholders can use to deal with employees who have disparate cultural perspectives | 6 |
| Building Common Ground: Open-Ended Questions | Meets “Proficient” criteria and supporting examples demonstrate a complex grasp of the utility of open-ended questions in eliciting information | Assesses the utility of the open-ended questions that were used for eliciting useful information and supports assessment with specific examples | Assesses the utility of the open-ended questions that were used for eliciting useful information and supports assessment with examples, but assessment is cursory or contains inaccuracies or examples are not specific or relevant to argument | Does not assess the utility of the open-ended questions that were used for eliciting information that was useful or your colleague | 4.5 |
| Building Common Ground: Summarized Key Ideas | Meets “Proficient” criteria and description demonstrates a complex grasp of the importance of summarization in negotiation | Identifies points during transcribed conversations in which interviewer verbally summarized key ideas, describing the importance of each occurrence to communications in the interviews | Identifies points during transcribed conversation in which interviewer verbally summarized key ideas, describing the importance of each occurrence to communications in interviews, but description is cursory or response contains inaccuracies | Does not identify the points during transcribed conversation in which interviewer verbally summarized key ideas | 4.5 |
| Building Common Ground: Impact and Intent | Meets “Proficient” criteria and supporting examples demonstrate a complex grasp of how employee actions and the intent of those actions can be at odds | Determines how the impact of the former employee’s actions was at odds with the intent, supporting determination with specific examples | Determines how the impact of the former employee’s actions was at odds with the intent, supporting determination with examples, but determination lacks clarity or contains inaccuracies or examples are not specific or relevant to argument | Does not determine how the impact of the former employee’s actions was at odds with the intent, supporting determination with examples | 4.5 |
| Building Common Ground: Practices | Meets “Proficient” criteria and supporting conflict resolution practices demonstrate a complex grasp of what makes practices relevant in different situations | Identifies practices by which the affected department can rebuild trust and supports identification with accepted conflict resolution practices | Identifies practices by which the affected department can rebuild trust and supports identification with accepted conflict resolution practices, but support is cursory or conflict resolution practices are not relevant | Does not identify practices by which the affected department can rebuild trust | 4.5 |
| Dispute Resolution and Legal Ramifications: Laws | Meets “Proficient” criteria and supporting examples exemplify connections between relevant laws and the specific situation | Determines what laws are applicable in this situation and how they are applicable, supporting response with specific examples | Determines what laws are applicable in this situation and how they are applicable, supporting response with examples, but determination is cursory or contains inaccuracies or examples are not specific or relevant to argument | Does not determine what laws are applicable in this situation and how they are applicable | 6 |
| Dispute Resolution and Legal Ramifications: Negotiations | Meets “Proficient” criteria and supporting examples demonstrate a complex grasp of the complexities involved in direct negotiations, mediation, and arbitration | Describes the benefits and risks for direct negotiations, mediation, and arbitration between the stakeholders and supports description with specific examples | Describes the benefits and risks for direct negotiations, mediation, and arbitration between the stakeholders and supports description with examples, but description is cursory or contains inaccuracies or examples are not specific or relevant to argument | Does not describe the benefits and risks for direct negotiations, mediation, and arbitration between the stakeholders | 6 |
| Dispute Resolution and Legal Ramifications: Strategies | Meets “Proficient” criteria and recommended risk-minimizing strategies make especially cogent connections between the conflict negotiations and the analysis | Recommends appropriate risk-minimizing strategies for the conflict negotiations based on the analysis of dispute resolutions and legal ramifications | Recommends risk-minimizing strategies for the conflict negotiations, but recommendations are cursory, inappropriate, or not based on analysis of dispute resolutions and legal ramifications | Does not recommend risk-minimizing strategies for the conflict negotiations | 6 |
| Articulation of Response | Submission is free of errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, and organization and is presented in a professional and easy-to-read format | Submission has no major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization | Submission has major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideas | Submission has critical errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that prevent understanding of ideas | 5 |
| Total: | 100% |
,
Kevin Claven
Milestone One Overview And Conflict Analysis
WCM-620-10073-M01
Professor Victoria Frye
August 17, 2024
Overview
The case is based on a dispute between Kareem, a former employee of the ABC Corporation, and a set of managers of the organization, including the call center manager Thomas and direct supervisor Janet. Kareem was fired from the employment position of customer service representative having been accused of poor performance and taking too many breaks; Kareem is a practicing Muslim. The conflict arose from Kareems’ request for prayer times that he did not properly communicate with the management. This made him be labeled as a poor performer and later dismissed from his job. As for the conflict parties, main actors can be distinguished: Kareem, the protagonist; Thomas who works together with Kareem; Janet, another employee of the shop; Michael – one more coworker; Kathy – a friend of Kareem, also employed at the shop. Conflict Analysis
Kareem saw himself as a hardworking and capable employee while other employees including the management had a different opinion about his working capability. Kareem thought he was delivering good results saying that he received commendations from the customers and once in a while Janet complimented his work. However, his religious practices that demanded that he take several breaks brought down his call handling numbers, which he never knew since he felt he was performing well enough. That is why the lack of correspondence between Kareem and the management’s perception of him presented one of the main factors for the worsening of the conflict.
Thomas and Janet failed to understand Kareem’s truancies as anything other than negligence of duty in a bid to enhance productivity. Thomas, innovative, never attempted to inquire about the details of Kareem’s reality, opting for the Call Centre narrative that Kareem was not performing well enough. In fact, Janet failed to discuss with Kareem to figure out whether he had any difficulties or not, although she realized that he had not been present in many classes. Lack of communication was the major cause of this outcome which saw Kareem dismissed from the company.
They were basic working-for communication practices, performance-oriented, and little of discussion on personal or religious aspects. Thomas had been described as an intense leader whose major interest was on the numerical goals that were set for the employees; and in such a culture, employees rarely raised personal issues or concerns, including matters arising from family issues for fear of being fired from their jobs or being categorized as ‘Lazy’. Kareem, knowing this, decided that he was not going to practice his religion for he knew that this would land him in trouble or be closely monitored. This self-constructed wall of silence, coupled with the unwillingness for Janet and Thomas to start talking about the issue, have resulted in misunderstanding of Kareem’s conduct and thus the strife.
To reduce tension in this conflict some of the adjustments in the communication can be; On the first note, if there had been encouragement of employers to express their abilities, challenges and difficulties, Kareem could have expressed his religious ways of life. Thomas and Janet could have then redefined the goals or offered some considerations according to the firm’s policy and the laws of the land. Particular examples include establishing a comprehensive procedure that would enable employees to apply for and justify the need to take religious/personal legal absences without risking employment
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
