⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Personal Conflict Situation Analysis

Friday, July 09, 2021 4:28:59 PM

Personal Conflict Situation Analysis

The Personal Conflict Situation Analysis of the facilitation team will. What powers did people believe witches had of workers also staged demonstration at Mirpur in the capital but Personal Conflict Situation Analysis cleared the street when workers assembled. Hence, why divisions in individuals are experienced during war Personal Conflict Situation Analysis consequently force oneself to choose a Personal Conflict Situation Analysis. If consensus is reached, members agree to refrain from commenting negatively on Personal Conflict Situation Analysis agreement. True False Maybe I can force people Nt1330 Unit 1 Exercise 1 out their way for me Personal Conflict Situation Analysis being rude or hostile. Personal Conflict Situation Analysis resulted into Personal Conflict Situation Analysis.

CBC News: The National - Thanksgiving gatherings, Vaccine pushback, Athletes’ mental health

No attribution is needed; the opinions and ideas are simply reported. It is also important not to indicate which ideas or opinions represent a majority view. The purpose of the assessment is simply to set forth the range of ideas, not to polarize the debate by gauging whose views are dominant. Once the findings have been summarized, the assessor should make note of issues on which there is disagreement. One way to do this is with a matrix. On one axis are listed the issues in contention; on the other are the stakeholder groups. The assessor can place either Xs indicating that the issue is a primary concern for a stakeholder group or numbers from indicating the relative importance of the issue to the group.

Matrices are helpful to the assessor and can be included in the written assessment. Stakeholders may not agree with the priorities indicated in the matrix because not all stakeholders within a stakeholder group agree with each other. See Figure for a sample matrix showing the key concerns of interest groups in a hypothetical landfill siting case. The assessor should also make note of potential opportunities for "mutual gain," were the parties to enter negotiations.

The concept of mutual gains is described in detail in Chapter 8, but the basic premise is this: Since stakeholders generally differ regarding which issues are of greatest importance to them, they can "trade" across those issues to create gains for each other in the negotiated agreement. In the Delaware case, for example, it may appear that there was no room for agreement because the industry groups and the environmental groups held such sharply differing opinions on almost every issue. But they did, in fact, have different priorities. Industry was most concerned that any CZA regulations provide them with the flexibility to make changes, as needed, in their manufacturing processes and products.

The environmental groups, on the other hand, were most concerned that there be continuous improvement in the environmental health of the coastal zone. The final agreement gave industry the flexibility to make changes as needed, while requiring them to offset any environmental impacts from new projects with environmental improvements, either at their facility or elsewhere in the coastal zone. The improvements had to be "worth more" than the impacts, as measured by agreed-upon environmental indicators. Each side got what it felt was most important, while giving away something of lesser importance. By mapping stakeholder interests with a matrix, the assessor may be able to spot potential trades such as this. The assessor should also note potential obstacles to reaching agreement.

These might include issues on which mutual gain does not seem possible i. An analysis of disagreements can help to determine whether or not a consensus building process should proceed. In general, consensus building efforts are not likely to succeed if any of the following conditions hold. If just one of these conditions exists, it can usually be overcome, and a qualified recommendation to proceed may still be appropriate. For example, if a key stakeholder refuses to participate, the assessor can recommend going forward only if that stakeholder or someone with similar views can be convinced to take part. Most people have not been involved in consensus building efforts before and have difficulty judging whether or not such an effort is likely to be successful.

Nor is the lack of a legislative or regulatory mandate sufficient reason to call a halt; most consensus building processes can operate without one. If an assessor determines that a consensus building process is likely to be productive, the next step is to suggest the best way to proceed Phase 4, below. If the assessor believes a consensus process is feasible, the next step is to produce a preliminary process design. This should take the form of a recommendation to be included in the conflict assessment report. The recommendation may be modified based on suggestions from interviewees after they review the draft conflict assessment. Also, the elements of a proposed process should be discussed and modified as necessary at the first meeting of the full group.

Ultimately, a consensus building group must take "ownership" of the process in which they are involved. The inclusion of a proposed process design in the assessment report provides a starting point for discussion. There is no analytical process that can produce the "proper" design of a consensus building effort. It is not difficult, however, to describe the elements of a typical process design and list the primary questions that need to be answered.

In general, recommendations should be made regarding 1 the goals of the consensus building effort, 2 the agenda of issues to be discussed, 3 procedures for selecting the appropriate stakeholder representatives, 4 the time frame and schedule for meetings, 5 ground rules, 6 the relationship of the process to other decision-making efforts, and 7 funding. The assessor should suggest an appropriate mission for the consensus building effort e. The convenor probably has such an objective in mind, so the assessor should decide whether that objective is feasible. The assessor should suggest a modification if those goals are not appropriate given the results of the assessment.

In other cases—particularly those in which a group has already begun to meet and is unclear about its purpose—it is important that the assessor recommend clear, reachable goals. The richer the array of issues on the table, the greater the possibility of negotiating mutually advantageous "packages. Some issues may be too complex to handle in a single forum. In other circumstances, an issue may be too contentious to make much progress. For a policy dialogue on endangered species protection, for example, the assessors determined that it would be more productive to discuss the narrow issue of "incentives for private landowners to protect endangered species" than to take on other, highly contentious issues related to the Endangered Species Act The Keystone Center, The assessor should suggest an agenda that will allow for simplicity of discussion, and present it in the report.

In recommending who should participate, the assessor should think about inclusion and balance. All categories of stakeholders should be identified, and an approximately equal number of representatives from each major category should be determined. Ideally, the resulting mix should not be skewed toward one interest or another i. A newly formed consensus building group should also review representation at its first meeting and be sure that all appropriate interests are adequately represented at the table. Dispute resolution practitioners hold varying opinions about how large a consensus building group can be and still be productive.

We will not add to the debate by suggesting an optimal group size, because we have seen groups of widely varying sizes ranging from 5 to successfully forge consensus agreements. The assessor will be expected to make a recommendation regarding how many meetings are likely to be needed to cover the items on the agenda, when they should be held, and the order in which issues should be addressed. Meetings should be spaced at regular intervals, with adequate time between each to draft or review documents, undertake joint fact-finding, or complete other tasks. The total amount of time needed to complete a consensus building process will vary widely, depending on among other factors :. For a conflict that involves an acute situation, contained in a single community, for which there is a high level of interest, three or four four-hour meetings, spaced at weekly intervals, may be sufficient.

For a conflict that involves a chronic problem, at a national level, requiring a great deal of joint fact-finding, a series of 10 or more day-long sessions over a two-year period may be required. The assessor should make preliminary recommendations regarding the ground rules that should govern the dialogue. In general, ground rules should address the following. In addition, ground rules should address other issues about which stakeholders might be concerned. For example, a multistakeholder group in Connecticut had been meeting for several months, without making much progress, when a dispute resolution practitioner was hired to conduct a conflict assessment. Many stakeholders missed the meeting, at which several key decisions were made.

The assessor thus recommended that the group adopt a ground rule outlining a better procedure for rescheduling meetings S. McKearnan, personal communication, May 28, Interlocking activities relating to the issues addressed in the consensus building process will undoubtedly take place before, during, and after the process. Town meetings, public hearings, elections, court cases, the promulgation of administrative rules, academic research, and even other consensus-based processes may overlap.

The assessor must determine, to the extent possible, how the consensus building process might interact with these activities. Agreement may be needed by a certain date, for example, in order to meet a separate but linked deadline. It may be best not to begin a consensus process until after an election, so the political landscape is clear. Or, a faculty member at a local university may have a research project underway that could influence the dialogue.

The assessor should determine and make recommendations regarding the likely cost of the process, if it goes forward. The estimate will probably be a "best guess. A more-precise, itemized budget can be drawn up later if the process is goes ahead. The assessor may also want to recommend to the convenor that, once a process is underway, the group appoint an executive committee to oversee whatever funds are contributed by the convenor or other parties. Money may come solely from the convening organization or from a great many of sources.

Either way, the funding committee should determine how the money should be spent. The group must have autonomy so that the funding is not contingent on achieving a certain result. The analysis of the interview results and the proposed process design should be presented to the convenor and the interviewees in summary form. Some dispute resolution practitioners prefer to present their findings in an oral report. This may take less time and therefore cost less, leaving whatever funds are available for the consensus building effort itself. An oral report may also give the assessor more freedom to be candid with the convenor, although confidentiality must still be protected McKearnan, , p. Oral presentations may be particularly useful in those instances in which the number of parties interviewed is so small that it might not be possible to write a detailed analysis of the results without revealing who said what.

An assessor could also present his or her findings to one or more focus groups. These can be comprised of stakeholders with similar interests who are in a position to give the assessor feedback on the results. In general, however, we recommend a written report. This section should review the initiation of the assessment, naming the convenor, the assessor, the purpose of the assessment, how the assessment was conducted, the number of people interviewed, and, perhaps, a short summary of the points of agreement and disagreement among the interviewees.

As discussed previously, this section should summarize the interests and concerns of the interviewees, using language that protects confidentiality. This section should include, first, a recommendation regarding whether or not the assessor thinks a consensus building process should proceed. Second, if the assessor recommends that such an effort go forward, this section should sketch a possible process design—the work plan for proceeding.

Report distribution can be used to help launch a consensus building effort—serving as a "springboard" to convening. The first step in distribution is to circulate the report—with the word "draft" stamped on every page—to all interviewees and the convenor. Comments should be sought on both the description of stakeholder interests and on the proposed work plan. Once the deadline for comment has passed, the assessor should revise the draft and issue a final report.

This document can then be circulated to a wider audience, if appropriate. If a process hinges on public support, for example, the final document should be distributed to all relevant media outlets as well as the public and elected officials. A report that makes a case for a consensus building process will help strengthen public support. If a consensus building effort is recommended, the convenor should move ahead with the selection of a mediator, a first meeting of stakeholders to ratify the work plan, budget, and mediator selection , and securing adequate funds. If the assessment was conducted according to the guidelines set forth in this chapter, all the pieces should be in place to proceed.

This section discusses the tensions that often arise during the preparation of a conflict assessment and some of the suggestions that experienced practitioners have to offer about how to handle them. Included are a review of how to handle perceived conflicts of interest, how to structure a relationship between the assessor and the convenor, how media contact should be handled, and what conflict assessments typically cost. We believe that a conflict assessment is, willy-nilly, an educative process. Stakeholder interviews should always touch on what consensus building is and what it takes to make a process work. Although consensus building is more common these days, stakeholders are still relatively unfamiliar with the concept.

In addition, many groups are represented by inexperienced negotiators. Those in positions of leadership are likely to be familiar with the traditional adversarial approach to dealing with differences, but not with the mutual gains approach outlined in Chapter 8. Because this is true, we consider it to be a responsibility of the assessor to help those with less knowledge and experience think about creating the right conditions for effective participation. Some may need negotiation training. Some may require financial support to cover travel expenses. The assessor can help by offering all parties "off-line" training or finding another qualified professional to provide this help or by working with the parties to identify financial support.

An assessor must be careful not to jeopardize his or her neutrality. It is not appropriate, for example, for the assessor to give "extra" information, advice, or training to one stakeholder or group but not to the others. All should be treated equally, even though they may have different needs and levels of ability. The assessor should offer negotiation training to all stakeholders, for example, not just those who need it most. Assessors should not offer strategic advice to one "side" during an assessment process either e. In our view, this is a clear ethical boundary. The assessor should ask questions that force each stakeholder group to think hard about its options e.

What makes you think that? What do you think the most important issues are for other stakeholders? But questions like these should be asked of all parties, to ensure fairness. Yet most assessors are experienced mediators who hope to be selected to facilitate the process if it goes forward. It would appear, therefore, that the assessor has an inherent incentive to recommend that a group be convened. There is a simple—though problematic—way to avoid this possible conflict of interest. The assessor can be prohibited from competing for the consensus building contract. Such a prohibition, however, would undermine one of the primary purposes of a conflict assessment, which is to build relationships. In the course of an assessment, the assessor works to build the trust of the stakeholders.

This trust is essential for mediating successfully. Any new mediator would have to start from scratch which is practically impossible once the process has begun. But a general recommendation about whether or not to proceed is not the primary purpose of a conflict assessment. It may be clear, for example, that some sort of consensus building process is desirable. In these instances, the primary purposes are to build relationships, secure stakeholder participation, and develop a work plan. There is no conflict of interest, therefore, if the outcome is more or less predetermined and everyone expects the assessor to mediate the process that follows. In situations in which the feasibility recommendation is, indeed, the primary focus, it is not uncommon for the assessor to recommend not proceeding C.

In fact, one study revealed that, of 81 environmental disputes in which mediators sought to intervene, 57 were found during the assessment phase to be inappropriate for mediation. Another 16 never got past a first organizational meeting. It is also common for conflict assessments—as in the Delaware case—to recommend going forward only if certain conditions can be met. Assessors, too, have an interest in ensuring that a process that does continue has a good chance of succeeding. It should be remembered, as well, that assessors only make recommendations. They do not have decision making authority, and they cannot force the parties to proceed.

There has to be a basis, on the merits, for going forward. This is the best safeguard against potential conflict of interest. The assessment and the final report should be used to help the convenor survey the complexities of the conflict at hand. We do not assume that a convenor is knowledgeable about mediation or consensus building. Indeed, the concept of neutrality, the principles of mutual gains negotiation, and the definition of consensus will probably all need to be explained. The contract between the convenor and the assessor should specify that a conflict assessment involves an independent analysis based on the professional judgment of the assessor. Even with a signed contract, the relationship between the assessor and the convenor can be tricky, and occasionally it turns sour.

For example, a convenor may want to rewrite the assessment report so that the recommendations reflect his or her own conclusions. Or, the convenor may insist, after a draft is completed, that the assessor interview additional stakeholders or present the concerns of a certain group in a different way. Most will say "no" to such requests. The best "solution" to problems of this sort is prevention. Through open communication before and during the assessment process, these difficulties can usually be avoided. But if a conflict does emerge, the assessor should negotiate with the convenor, using the mutual gains approach outlined in Chapter 8 and perhaps, with the assistance of another mediator. The assessor may have to take a hard line and opt out. If an assessor is forced to abandon the process, he or she should let the interviewees know what has happened in general terms , being careful to leave the door open for a return if the convenor has a change of heart.

Media attention can complicate a conflict assessment, in part, because it can undermine a promise of confidentiality. Therefore, there is rarely a reason for an assessor to seek media attention—at least not until an assessment has been completed. The media are interested in "news," and conflict assessments are not really newsworthy until a decision has been made to go forward. If the subject of a conflict assessment is highly controversial, however, the media may take an interest. If a reporter does call during an assessment process, the assessor should focus on the purpose of the assessment, including its timing, the types of stakeholders being interviewed, and the qualifications of the convenor.

The assessor should definitely not characterize the concerns of the stakeholders, name the interviewees, or offer a preview of his or her recommendations. Interviewees, of course, are entitled to speak with the media about their own views, but they should be advised not to talk about their attitudes toward others being interviewed. Once a written conflict assessment has been prepared, the assessor and the convenor may wish to release it to the media, as discussed in the previous section on Report Distribution. The assessor should encourage stakeholders to talk to others involved in previous conflict assessments and to review completed assessments. They will quickly realize that even if word does get out about the recommendations contained in a conflict assessment, the parties retain the sole authority to decide whether to go ahead or not and to set the terms for the conversation.

Costs depend on the fees of the assessor and the number of interviewees. Convenors often prefer a fixed-price contract to an open-ended one based on hourly rates. The cost of a fixed-price contract is generally determined by multiplying the daily or hourly fee of the assessors by the amount of time required to arrange and conduct interviews, analyze the results, write the report, and revise it in light of comments received.

The costs of travel, long-distance calls and faxes, and related administrative overhead must also be factored in. It is customary for all costs to be covered by the convening organization. So, an assessment that includes interviews with 25 people will require roughly hours to complete. Not only were there fewer interviews, but we used lower-level staff, charged lower daily fees, and minimized expenses in a variety of ways.

As consensus building becomes more widespread, convenors, stakeholders, and even mediators may assume that conflict assessments are unnecessary. One third of the world's history comes from Egypt. This essay will talk about Egypt's location and geography, culture and government, and the Great Pyramids of Giza. Egypt is located in North Africa and southwest Asia connecting the two continents together. It has an area of , square miles and a population close to 98 million. Finding yourself alone in a new country will force you out of your shell. Everyone is filling the same as you. They are nervous and wanting to enjoy their abroad experience. You will have to approach people and make new friends, and this will increase your self-confidence.

If you are used to always relying on your parents to get things done, studying abroad will teach you to fend for yourself and enable you to develop good organizational skills. I will explain the main points I have learned in this class, what it means to have learned all of the information, How I have changed my perspective on economics, how I can apply my knowledge in the workforce and why this course was so important to me. There were many days I would wake up and feel like not attending class but I would get up and go anyways. One reason was because a vast majority of the people accused were family and friends of other people.

These people began to question the righteousness of the court and felt that innocent people were being executed. The main reason for the end of the trials was, because the accusations soon became too bold. In the beginning, people of low class were being accused, making it seem more believable. As the hunt continued, accusations were aimed at higher classed people. My teacher really has my fellow classmates and myself ready for reality. She taught us everything we needed to know from the simplest to the most difficult techniques and has us prepared us for college.

From the way she would teach us and also the way she treated us was an excellent way to show how the real life of a college student really does face on a daily bases. This year taught me so much that I use certain techniques to help me in other subjects. I came from a country where corporal punishment is acceptable; therefore, beating is a part of social norms to us. Our cultural belief plays another role in what we will grow up to become. Miller illustrates is based on what a perfect world should look like, but to face the reality, this life is like a roller coaster that is full of ups and downs. One thing that I observed about this book is that it is confusing and full of jargons, also, it is biased, in the sense that it is directed towards therapist, but not to audience who may be experiencing narcissistic disturbance or struggling to gain their true self.

More importantly, I have grown to value my culture and for the people that are in my life and how I as an individual am a great representation of my culture. All in all, I enjoyed this interview simply because I went in not knowing much of the Hispanic culture, while leaving out I am knowledgeable of the Hispanics. Conflict is something we have to deal with on a daily basis. Unfortunately, conflict is an inevitable part of human relationships. Conflicts can happen at anytime or anywhere at work with co-workers, at home with our families or friends, for instance.

I am aware that in some point I will have to handle a conflict and even more when I will be manager. In fact, manager must be able to identify, understand the source of the conflict, and resolve any kind of conflict ocurring within the team that he manages. Because each individual have strenghts and weaknesses, teamworks can sometimes trigger sparks and create conflicts. It is natural to have discrepencies within a team. Thus, The risk of conflict are many. This is the reason why the manager have to face differences without getting into the emotional process and without losing sight of the objectives and priorities of the team.

I personally had a few conflicts throughout my life because I try to avoid it as much as possible. However, I could not always escape from it and I have to handle some. Moreove, I consider myself proactive. I always try to monitor …show more content… Also, conflicts allowed me to learn how to resolve efficiency a conflict and gave me some insight about how to be a good leader. In fact, those experiences taught me that a leader is someone able to motivate, inspire, teach his team how to work together, and resolve conflicts within his team. Handling conflicts is one of the most important characteristics not only in the business world but in our daily lives as well. This characteristic can make life less stressful, produce happiness, and put a smile on the face instead of agony and low.

Disagreements are not negotiated until everyone understands Personal Conflict Situation Analysis facts and feelings that caused the Personal Conflict Situation Analysis. Elie Wiesel's Speech Words Personal Conflict Situation Analysis Pages Seeing that there is still Personal Conflict Situation Analysis in the world and seeing that after many years people are still fighting for their Personal Conflict Situation Analysis, It can Personal Conflict Situation Analysis presumed that Humans have not changed. To What Are The Effects Of The Progressive Era students tools Sam Clydesdale: Summary analyze value conflicts, to evaluate the Personal Conflict Situation Analysis involved, and to generate predictive Personal Conflict Situation Analysis and concrete steps towards a resolution. A Personal Conflict Situation Analysis meeting, as Personal Conflict Situation Analysis problem solving, can be very effective in conflicts Personal Conflict Situation Analysis misunderstanding or language barriers. Toggle Personal Conflict Situation Analysis. The person convening the process must first determine whether there is a reasonable chance of succeeding.

Current Viewers: