HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECT ON HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS IN A CHALLENGING WORKPLACE...

DONE BY, DIVYA RAVEENDRAN-3511110062 BALDEV SINGH-3511110063 D.KALIARASAN-3511110064 S.P.ARUN-3511110065

1)RESOLVING INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT IN THE WORKPLACE

People need people for sharing happiness,for sharing grief,for resolving grievances,for interdependence and for synergy.Perhaps the most important ingredient for organizational effectiveness is effective teamwork. Performance = Ability * Motivation * Teamwork If any one of these three becomes zero,then performance is a big zero.One of the critical blocks in organizations for effective TEAMWORK is conflict interpersonal,intra-group and inter-group conflict.Interpersonal and intergroup conflicts are inevitable and widely prevalent in organizations for not reaching their potential. If conflict is to be handled in a gainful manner however, it is vitally important that individuals and organizations develop robust strategies for coping with conflict in the workplace. This consideration is especially important for managers, whom are often required to handle conflicts, and for whom the sheer width, breadth, depth and frequency of interpersonalinteraction is often staggering. Therefore, in efforts to build a base of understanding, and with a particular focus on the role played by managers, let us now examine some of the core approaches employed in dealing with conflict in the workplace; namely: unilateral resolution, consultation, facilitation, mediation and arbitration. Unilateral Resolution of Workplace Conflict During the course of an average day a manager may be involved, either directly or indirectly, in a variety of interpersonal conflicts of varying intensities and foci. Not surprisingly, managers will often intuitively seek to resolve these disagreements by means that are primarily unilateral in nature. In simple terms, a unilateral resolution revolves around efforts to resolve conflict via the application of influence or authority to one specific person, group, or faction involved in a dispute, and not to the other(s). For example, when dealing with a common workplace issue such as bullying or related misconduct, a manager might often respond, almost by way of reflex, by taking action upon the individual(s) whom are thought or evidenced to have been the instigators of the incident, while at the same time, giving little or no attention to those perceived as the victim(s).

Unilateral resolutions are attractive simply because they seem comparatively quick and painless to a beleaguered manager: after all, its just a quick witch-hunt, a brief flex of managerial muscle, a few lashes with company policy and then on with the business at hand right? Indeed, as a quick fix solution, few approaches can compare to the unilateral tack. There are however, a number of potential drawbacks that warrant discussion. First and foremost, in the all too common event that no culpable individual(s) can be found, or more importantly, proven to be at fault, managers will find that all of their investigative efforts and best intentions have been for naught. Without a culprit, ideally one that can be proven to be at fault beyond reasonable doubt, the unilateral approach to conflict resolution simply does not work. There is also the very real potential that someone may be wrongly accused, by an over-eager or misinformed manager for example, or made a scapegoat by their workmates. As a further consideration, even if a clear culprit can be found, punishing or disciplining the guilty party is really only a patch-job, having little or no effect upon the underlying issues. Finally, unilateral resolutions largely ignore the role played by the other side in the conflict, which may leave them feeling neglected, or in some cases, feeling they have gotten away with it. This is dangerous because it can confer to such a party an enticing advantage towards engaging in the continuation and/or intensification of the situation. However, all of these factors aside, research has shown that, while far from ideal, unilateral resolution is often a satisfactory method for dealing with trivial conflicts, wherein there is relatively little ego involvement on behalf of the disputing parties and relatively low levels of potential negative consequence. In the end though, it must be said that many attempts at unilateral resolution are impractical, irrational and biased in nature, and thusly, exist as a liability. Truly skilled managers therefore, should move beyond antiquated notions of the draconian manager exercising his/her might upon the whelps by raining down unilateral dictates; acting at once as judge, jury and executioner. In acknowledgment of these facts, when confronting conflicts within the workplace, alternative methods should always take precedence. Consultative Resolution of Workplace Conflict Personal achievement and satisfaction within the workplace, as with any other domain of life, owes a great deal to the reciprocal relationships we hold with significant others. Sadly, when things are going well, we seldom express our true appreciation for, nor even recognize at times, the pivotal role that others have played in our success. Only when conflict arises in the workplace do the relationships we hold with others come consistently into our field of focus, and typically for all the wrong reasons at that. When this scrutiny of interpersonal relationships does occur, individuals involved in a

conflict, typically after the initial heat of the stoush has died out, will often opt to attempt some sort of consultative resolution on their own initiative. When taking a consultative approach to conflict resolution disputants attempt to take responsibility for, and ownership of, their own disputes. In this style, disputants attempt to sort out their own conflicts in a reasonable and pragmatic manner, with those involved advising, negotiating and counselling each other towards either shared understandings, a practical compromise or, ideally but very rarely, outcomes that are desirable for everyone involved. Resolutions of this nature would of course delight any manager, after all, its one less problem for you to deal with right? In the real world however, anecdotal evidence and the weight of common sense tells us that the consultative approach is, at best, idealistic. Indeed, while fairy-tale endings have been known to accrue, we should be mindful that consultative efforts are equally as likely to result in frustrating stalemates or the rapid escalation of disputes. This does not mean that the consultative approach is without merit. Consultation certainly has the potential to be gainful when employed as an early-intervention strategy, especially as it can sometimes circumvent an escalation of matters towards formal resolution procedures and the involvement of third parties, such as managers or consultants, thereby saving organizational resources and sparing those that would be required to intercede a great deal of stress and strain in the process. However, because consultative resolutions are inherently informal and unsupervised in nature, they can often run the risk of becoming a liability, unless all parties involved are sufficiently skilled in negotiation, interpersonal communications and operating from a place of rationalism and empathy. Certainly, providing that all of these prerequisites can be met by those involved in the conflict, there is some potential for positive results to accrue from the consultative approach. Of course, unless a manager is actually one of the disputing parties, they will typically not be involved in the consultative resolution of conflict, nor perhaps even aware that there is a problem, or that an attempt at resolution is taking place at all. This might concern some managers, especially those predisposed to a more dictatorial style, in that they would find themselves firmly out of the loop. If one is to capitalize on the potential gains of consultative conflict resolution it is crucial that managers can take a step back and allow employees to attempt to work out their differences. This is not to say however, that a manager should take a hands-off attitude to workplace conflict, but rather, that they should position themselves as a safety-net, always vigilant, available and prepared to intervene should things turn sour.

Resolution of Workplace Conflict Through Facilitation Sometimes there is an obvious need for a third party to intervene in a given conflict, and more often than not, this responsibility falls squarely upon the shoulders of a manager. It is an unfortunate reality of the workplace that some matters simply cannot be resolved by the parties involved, and that these conflicts, if left unresolved, can tend to fester. When third-party intervention is required, facilitation will typically be considered as the first port of call, and if it is not, it certainly should be. Often known as the softly-softly approach, facilitation is a relatively informal approach in which a third party, preferably one respected by and familiar with the disputing parties, brings the complainants together for discussions in the hope of establishing mutually satisfactory resolutions. Typically conducted for best effect on a relaxed and neutral stage, perhaps over drinks, or coffee, or at lunch, facilitation is most effective when the third party effectively elicits forthright communication between all the disputants. At times, a facilitator may be required to play referee, insofar as assuring that everybody has the chance to speak their mind, make their case and be heard. It is important however, that the facilitator does not overplay their role in the proceedings, remaining always a background character that stays as neutral and objective as possible. Facilitation is a strategy for conflict resolution that is most potent in the early-stages of conflicts. Due to its informal air, facilitation need not cause disruption in the workplace, nor discontent amongst the parties involved, whom might well feel otherwise intimidated or embarrassed if called to account under a more formal context. Employed typically for fairly minor or mild conflicts, facilitation can be an extremely useful approach for a manager, whom sometimes might have to do as little as get the parties together and lend his/her presence to proceedings. Certainly, early informal interventions into conflicts, such as facilitation, should always be the first response to the identification of a potentially serious workplace conflict. On the other hand, as with all approaches, there are issues revolving around facilitation that should concern a manager. Firstly, there is the very real potential that disputing parties may agree to meet, or even accept certain resolutions simply because of the involvement of the third party, whom can often unwittingly intimidate or guilt-trip disputants, even by just being involved. Also, half hearted agreements can often arise out a simple desire, on behalf of the disputants or facilitator, to escape the situation as expediently as possible in order to get on with other business, or for fear that other unwelcome issues and secrets might come to light during the process.

Mediation of Workplace Conflict

Having established that third party conflict interventions are an unfortunate reality of the modern workplace, there are times when the subtlety of facilitation simply isnt enough. When matters escalate towards disaster, or when pressing conflicts arise that are unlikely to be resolved in a timely manner by gentler means, a stronger and more involved stance may need to be adopted by a concerned third party. This is the point where the potential facilitator, intent on guiding and aiding in a resolution, must become a focused and driven mediator. Mediation is defined as a formal process of negotiation conducted in a controlled environment through which an impartial third party, ideally someone with no inherent decision-making power in regards to the matter, takes an active role in guiding disputing parties towards voluntarily settlement of a dispute. As with facilitation, this is achieved by opening up the channels of communication and encouraging cooperation and compromise between the parties involved. Unlike facilitation however, mediation involves the third party being responsible for the establishing and enforcing of ground rules regarding the negotiations, assisting in the articulation of the various positions held by those involved in the argument and, in most cases, the provision of their own informed, objective and impartial recommendations. It is wise to select a mediator that is not directly involved with the parties in dispute, and never someone with whom the disputants may have a personal relationship. Because of this, it is vitally important to exercise caution when using an internal mediator, especially if that mediator could be perceived as biased. If you are intent on settling a matter internally though, a relatively independent mediator may be able to be sourced from another department/branch/division. Of course, the easiest way to avoid these pitfalls is simply to bring in an independent mediator. Indeed, there are many private organizations and governmental bodies that offer highly skilled professional mediators for just such purposes. Needless to say, properly conducted mediation, executed from a position of neutrality by suitably skilled and experienced mediators, exists as a powerful tool for resolving conflict in the workplace. Evidence suggests that, when mediation does work, it tends to produce enduring resolutions that involve minimal damage to the ego or interests of those involved and minimum potential for negative spill-over in the workplace. Mediation is therefore widely regarded as an excellent means for resolving serious and pressing workplace conflicts. Regardless, it is worth noting that the process of mediation can consume enormous amounts of time and organizational resources, and thus, should be entered into only after conducting a costbenefit analysis or a similar evaluation process. Resolving Workplace Conflict Through Arbitration

When all other avenues of resolution have been exhausted, and when everything has come to naught, a legally binding solution to a particularly troublesome conflict may be suggested, or demanded, as the only way forward. While typically held as a last resort, a formal process of arbitration should always remain an option. Arbitration is a formal process in which a third party, or occasionally parties, mutually agreed upon by the disputants or appointed by a suitable authority, renders a rational, legally-binding decision based upon the interpretation of the available evidence. The arbitrator(s) make this ruling after a formal hearing that generally involves the presentation of evidence and oral arguments in a style befitting of standard court proceedings. While relatively few workplace conflicts find their way into a court, or board of arbitration, in the most serious of disputes, lawyers or similar agents of representation will often be solicited by the disputing parties. As already stated, the results of arbitration are legally binding, and whilst they may be appealed on sufficient grounds, the ruling is intended to provide robust resolutions that are enduring. Because of its litigious nature, the arbitration process holds great power as tool for conflict resolution and is doubtless an effective system for resolving disputes. However, there are some serious risk factors that can arise. Foremost, arbitration presents a considerable risk of generating undesirable attitudinal and behavioural reactions on the part of the disputing parties. Regardless of how well it solves the immediate reality of the problem, arbitration rarely remedies the underlying issues. Because of this, arbitration can often distance and agitate the opposing parties, sometimes inducing them to increasingly perceive each other as self-interested opponents involved in a battle of wits and wills. This is never productive for a working relationship, and if the disputants are to go on working together, it can be potentially disastrous. Given these concerns, arbitration should be employed only in particularly troublesome or lingering conflicts and only after other approaches, such as facilitation or mediation, have failed to achieve a satisfactory resolution.

2)How to improve interpersonal relationships in the workplace:

All of us at some time are faced with interpersonal relationships that need to be fixed! Unfortunately most people simply don't have the skills to be able to successfully navigate the minefield that can be workplace relationships. In fact I'd estimate that more than 80% of the time I spend as a coach to high-performance leaders - is spent on helping these leaders to work their way through performance issues and problems with others. Building strong relationships through effective communication is the primary work of any leader. When you have the trust of others and they believe that by collaborating with you their results will improve then you have the world at your feet. This is why so much of this site is dedicated to helping you be the best possible version of you and helping you to improve your capability to build strong, effective, worthwhile interpersonal relationships. Articles on Workplace Improving Interpersonal Relationships In The

These articles on interpersonal relationships in the workplace are written to help you more fully understand yourself, others and how to get the very most from your work experience through the relationships you develop both as a leader and a team member. They deal more generally with enhancing and improving communication and relationships.

Types of Conflict in the Workplace: This article contains a list of the most common types of conflict, and an important rule to follow to successfully resolve personality conflicts ..

Be Open to Receiving Feedback: If you are fearful of people giving your feedback you may be under-living your potential ...

High Performance Leaders Build Strong, Healthy Relationships: Who did you call when you heard about 9/11 - your stockbroker, your banker or someone who has significance in your life? Strong, healthy interpersonal relationships are, at the final count, what makes for a significant life ...

Influence Tactics: Influence tactics that build trust and relationships are critical. Discover here the mindset and skills you need to bring out the best in yourself and others ...

Resolving Team Conflict: Overcome conflict in the workplace by working with people's differences ...

Communicating Without Defensiveness: With so much riding on your capability as a communicator you probably don't need much convincing to constantly improve this facet of your life

Assertiveness In The Workplace: A lack of assertiveness in the workplace causes people to avoid giving appropriate feedback and results in under-performance ...

Reading Non-verbal Communication: Reading your audience is an important part of communicating. The non-verbal communication clues you

get from others helps you to know whether you are hitting the mark or not ...

Barriers to Effective Communication: Which piece of technology is causing you to become a poor communicator?

Employee Performance Management Technique: This technique enables you to identify why a person doesn't perform the task required or to the standard required. Generally there are two reasons people underperform .. Be kind to yourself. If you have a bunch of relationships that aren't working as well as they could ... it can feel a bit daunting. Instead focus on taking it one step at a time ... one conversation at a time. Each time you interact with someone, remind yourself that you want to be the best possible version of you. If you take the few seconds to do this in every interaction you have ... you will set yourself up for a life-time of feeling good.Ultimately isn't it the quality of our relationships and the people who want to be with us, that define our lives? So whether you are in a crisis situation ... you have that sinking feeling that most of the people around you, would rather that your weren't around. Or whether your relationships are pretty good and you just want to take them to the next level, in the articles below you will find some ideas, tips and tools you'll be able to use. In the early part of my career I was certainly guilty of being too aggressive and abrasive and boy did it cost me. It cost me both in terms of limiting my career progression and it cost me in terms of stress and unhappiness ... I knew I was upsetting others ... I knew people didn't always like me ... I knew that I wasn't being as effective as I could be and I would get more frustrated which led me to take it out on my team which led to ..... you can see the spiral I was on. Now many years and literally hundreds of books and attending hours upon hours at workshops (either as a learner or trainer) later - I have much to share with you to help you improve your workplace relationships - in fact the added benefit is ... when you apply what you discover here in these

workplace relationship articles - you'll also improve your personal relationships. And that is possibly even more important!

3)WORKPLACE POLITICS
Workplace politics, sometimes referred to as office politics or organizational politics is "the use of one's individual or assigned powerwithin an employing organization for the purpose of obtaining advantages beyond one's legitimate authority. Those advantages may include access to tangible assets, or intangible benefits such as status or pseudo-authority that influences the behavior of others. Both individuals and groups may engage in Office Politics." [1] Office politics has also been described as "simply how power gets worked out on a practical, day-to-day basis."[2] Gossip Office politics differs from office gossip in that people participating in office politics do so with the objective of gaining advantage, whereas gossip can be a purely social activity. However, the activities are related. Office gossip is often used by an individual to place themselves at a point where they can control the flow of information and therefore gain maximum advantage. Office politics also refers to the way co-workers act among each other. It can be either positive or negative (i.e. co-operate or compete). Manipulation At the root of office politics is the issue of manipulation which can happen in any relationship where one or more of the parties involved use indirect means to achieve their goals. In the workplace, where resources are limited, individuals have an incentive to achieve their goals at the expense of their colleagues. For example, if six people apply for one promotion, they might expect the selection to be made purely on merit. Where one of the people believes that this would put them at a disadvantage, they may use other means of coercion or influence to put themselves into an advantageous position. When the people being manipulated begin to talk to each other directly, or when other evidence comes to light such as financial results, the manipulator will have an explanation ready but will already be planning their exit, because they would rather stay in control than face a revelation which exposes their behaviour. Aims

The aims of office politics or manipulation in the workplace are not always increased pay or a promotion. Often, the goal may simply be greater power or control for its own end; or to disrepudiate a competitor. While office politics do not necessarily aim at selfish gains - they can be a means towards outcomes which are corporate and benefit the company, not the individual - a 'manipulator' will often achieve career or personal goals by co-opting as many colleagues as possible into their plans, strengthening their own position by ensuring that they will be the last person to be accused of any wrongdoing, because they ally themselves with everyone, changing sides to suit their own personal, hidden agenda. Issues Office politics is a major issue in business because the individuals who manipulate their working relationships consume time and resources for their own gain at the expense of the team or company. In addition to this problem, the practice of office politics can have an even more serious effect on major business processes such as strategy formation, budget setting, performance management, and leadership. This occurs because when individuals are playing office politics, it interferes with the information flow of a company. Information can be distorted, misdirected, or suppressed, in order to manipulate a situation for short-term personal gain.[3] Games Mind games One way of analysing office politics in more detail is to view it as a series of games. [4] These games can be analysed and described in terms of the type of game and the payoff. Interpersonal games are games that are played between peers (for example the game of "No Bad News" where individuals suppress negative information, and the payoff is not risking upsetting someone); leadership games are played between supervisor and employee (for example the game of "Divide and Conquer" where the supervisor sets his employees against each other, with the payoff that none threatens his power base); and budget games are played with the resources of an organisation (for example the game of "Sandbagging" where individuals negotiate a low sales target, and the payoff is a bigger bonus)

4)TIPS TO MANAGE YOUR MANAGER : :

Most people, whether they like it or not, are managed at some point in their career. To create a productive relationship with your manager takes a keen understanding of their management style. We have reported how Gen Y are

managing their bosses and changing the workplace, but the following are general tips to effectively manage your manager to develop a productive relationship with your boss:

Keep Your Ideas Simple Your manager likely has numerous employees reporting to him / her, which results in a lot of information to oversee. By keeping your ideas simple, you should be able to get their attention and get your idea through to them. Be Direct Communicating your ideas should not involve a lot of fluff. Eliminate excess, irrelevant information. For instance, lets say you have 10 pages of research that led to your insights. Provide those insights, then have a conversation where you can draw upon your research. Overloading your manager with excess fluff can derail your conversation. One Step at a Time Lets say you have an idea to increase productivity that includes 10 steps. Before you outline the 10 steps, have a brief conversation about productivity in the workplace. Its best to take a logical, beginning-to-end approach to ensure your manager can follow your rational. Ask Questions to Arrive at Mistakes Being direct is important to get to the point, but should not be used when pointing out errors. If your manager is clearly incorrect about his / her conclusion, try leading them to their mistakes by asking questions, such as what will be the end result of [fill in the blank]. Use Lists to Stay Organized Instead of sending your manager long paragraphs about what youd like to accomplish, send them bulleted lists with additional info if completely necessary. This will help them understand where youre adding value and can help eliminate confusion of where your priorities lie. Adapt to Their Management Style Does your boss like hard facts or prefer more of a narrative? The more you can understand what makes your boss tick, the easier you can adapt to their management style. Understanding their management style doesnt happen over night. Youll likely have some personality conflicts at first, but over time you should better understand how you can work together. Honesty is the Best Policy If you have disappointing numbers, sugar coating it will only point to your inability to accept responsibility. If you made a mistake, point out your mistake, why it happened and how youre going to avoid it in the future. This will show your ability to take responsibility and sync with your bosses expectations.

Take Initiative (While Keeping the Boss in the Loop) Taking initiative demonstrates your dedication to make the company / department succeed. But that doesnt mean you should spend 75 percent of your time working on a secret initiative only to find out you wasted your time and didnt meet your agree-upon goals. Let your boss know what youre doing and ensure youre going to meet your goals but would like to dedicate extra time on new initiatives. Perception is Everything If your boss sees that youre taking extra long lunch breaks, leaving a bit early, its not unreasonable to suspect youre not putting in your time like everyone else. Personally, I try get into work before everyone else, take minimal breaks, eat at my desk and communicate regularly on projects. Therefore, my boss perceives me to be putting in the extra hours and respect that I keep him in the loop. Under Promise and Over Deliver Before embarking on a project everyone agrees on goals (i.e. if we do this, we should yield that). If you try to impress your boss by trying to exceed their expectations from the start, and you cannot meet those expectations, youve just demonstrated your inability to meet goals. If you cant meet goals, then you are underdelivering and far less valuable. Do yourself a favor and find where your bosses expectations lie, and balance it with what you can reasonably do. This will help prevent from over promising and under delivering.