MENTORING MATTERS: EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION AND RESOLVING CONFLICT

Transcription

1 1 MENTORING MATTERS: EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION AND RESOLVING CONFLICT Audrey J. Murrell, Ph.D. Assciate Prfessr f Business Administratin, Psychlgy, Public and Internatinal Affairs and Directr, David Berg Center fr Ethics & Leadership

2 Mentring Defined The prcess f frming, cultivating and maintaining mutually beneficial develpmental relatinships between ne r mre mentrs and ne r mre prtégés. Develpmental netwrks as a grup f peple wh take interest in and actin t supprt and/r advance an individual s career, persnal and/r prfessinal develpment.

3 Mentring Functins Career Functins: Thse aspects f mentring relatinships that enhance learning the rpes and supprting the individual s career advancement and prfessinal develpment. Spnsrship Expsure & Visibility Caching Prtectin Challenging Assignments

4 Mentring Functins Psychscial Functins: Thse aspects f mentring relatinships that enhance a sense f cmpetence, clarity f identity, perceptins f rganizatin supprt and verall effectiveness in ne s prfessinal rle. Rle Mdeling Acceptance & Cnfirmatin Cunseling Friendship

5 Mentring in Nt a Panacea Eby & McManus typlgy f negative mentring experiences include: Explitatin Egcentricity Sabtage Harassment Interpersnal difficulty Research n ther negative factrs include: Mentring vs clning Unethical behavir (e.g., taking credit fr wrk) Bundary vilatins

6 Is Cnflict Gd r Bad?: Pre 1970s View Histrically, experts viewed cnflict as dysfunctinal Undermined relatins Wasted human energy Mre jb dissatisfactin, turnver, stress Less prductivity, infrmatin sharing Gd Cnflict utcmes 0 Bad Lw Level f cnflict High

7 Is Cnflict Gd r Bad?: 1970s- 1990s View 1970s t 1990s belief in an ptimal level f cnflict Sme level f cnflict is gd because: Energizes debate Reexamine assumptins Imprves respnsiveness t external envirnment Increases team chesin Gd Cnflict utcmes 0 Bad Lw Optimal cnflict Level f cnflict High

8 Is Cnflict Gd r Bad?: Emerging View Tw types f cnflict Cnstructive cnflict -- Cnflict is aimed at issue, nt parties Relatinship cnflict -- Cnflict is aimed at undermining the ther party Gal: encurage cnstructive cnflict, minimize relatinship cnflict Gd Cnflict utcmes 0 Cnstructive cnflict Relatinship cnflict Prblem: difficult t separate cnstructive frm relatinship cnflict Drive t defend activated when ideas are critiqued Bad Lw Level f cnflict High

9 The Cnflict Prcess Cnflict Perceptins Surces f Cnflict Cnflict Emtins Manifest Cnflict Cnflict Outcmes Cnflict Escalatin Cycle

10 Structural Surces f Cnflict Incmpatible Gals One party s gals perceived t interfere with ther s gals Different assumptins/defintins f mentring Differentiatin Different values/beliefs Explains crss-cultural and generatinal cnflict Task Interdependence Cnflict increases with interdependence Parties mre likely t interfere with each ther mre

11 Structural Surces f Cnflict Scarce Resurces Mtivates cmpetitin fr the resurce Lack f access t clsed netwrks Ambiguus Rules Creates uncertainty, threatens gals Withut rules, peple rely n plitics Cmmunicatin Prblems Diversity dialgs (functin, gender, race, generatin, culture, level, tenure) Pressures fr impressin management

12 Five Cnflict Handling Styles High Frcing Prblem-slving Assertiveness Cmprmising Aviding Yielding Lw Cperativeness High

13 Cnflict Handling Cntingencies Prblem slving Best when: Interests are nt perfectly ppsing Parties have trust/penness Issues are cmplex Prblem: ther party take advantage f infrmatin Frcing Best when: yu have a deep cnvictin abut yur psitin quick reslutin required ther party wuld take advantage f cperatin Prblems: relatinship cnflict, lng-term relatins

14 Cnflict Handling Cntingencies Aviding Best when: relatinship cnflict is high cnflict reslutin cst is higher than benefits Prblems: desn t reslve cnflict, frustratin Yielding Best when: ther party has much mre pwer issue is much less imprtant t yu than ther party value/lgic f yur psitin is imperfect Prblem: Increases ther party s expectatins

15 Cnflict Handling Cntingencies Cmprmising Best when Parties have equal pwer Quick slutin is required Parties lack trust/penness Prblem: Sub-ptimal slutin where mutual gains are pssible Key Questin hw des yur cnflict style enhance versus bstruct effective mentring relatinships?