The organization is a Financial Institution and more precisely a Bank, which has set patterns for each work procedures, and the employees need to abide by them. The banking environment has a very professional milieu whose rules are set by the Regulating Bank of the respective country and therefore any disobedience of laws might lead to serious repercussions.
Any turbulence or discrepancy in the work environment is appreciated if it is solved within the one it took birth among or else the work coordinator deals with it. If the matter becomes worse, the departmental heads and if even then it remains unresolved, it goes to the top management, who decides the decision to be acted upon. The organization prefers the matters to be resolved as soon as possible and give decisions in the most fair and just manner possible.
The conflict was actually between two people in a particular department who had some grudges against one another before coming into the organization. Unfortunately they ended up being in the same department with one being the (Management Information System) MIS Officer and other being the Quality Manager. However, one day the issue raised that some of the confidential information that is handled by the Management System Officer was accidentally forwarded to someone unauthorized for the information and that affected the Quality Manager’s work.
In this dispute some people sided with the MIS officer thinking that it was an actual accident while some thought it was to genuinely hurt the interest of the Quality Manager. Since the dispute was regarding some confidential information therefore it had to go to the higher authorities to be solved and pass a decision on.
Right or Wrong?
The party that seemed appropriate for me to side with was the Management Information System Manager as “to err is human” and in a working environment it is highly unlikely for a professional worker to take out his grudge in such a manner. Therefore I chose to protect the interest of the one defending rather than the one blaming without any solid proof other than the fact that they had a hatchet to bury.
Since it was a matter of the confidential information being disclosed therefore, it couldn’t have been kept within the two people as it concerned professional environment and not the personal. However, in order to stop this information from reaching to the top management the departmental heads decided to hold a meeting for this matter where both the parties would speak up their respective thoughts. The negotiations were decided to be held because the dilemma had “TWO sides, each with it’s own solution to the topic at hand, and an attempt to move towards ONE agreed solution” (Shachar, 2002).
However, both sides were more furious than willing to understand each others point of views and the supposed jury couldn’t exactly figure out the right suspect. However, since there could be no harsh action taken against the Management Information System (MIS) Officer, as there was no solid proof, the confidential information passed on to unauthorized personnel was somehow stopped via technological expertise’s help.
Despite the discontinuation of the information reaching the unauthorized personnel, the Quality Manager was adamant on insisting that the Management Information System (MIS) Officer should get some punishment. However, the other officials did not have any proof against him to terminate him or his pay or for that matter, punish him in anyway. The unreasonable argument of the Quality Manager is enhanced by the fact that he was more interested in satisfying his grudge against the Management Information System (MIS) officer by being persistent on his punishment despite the truth that the MIS officer personally apologized to him as well. As far as the relationship between the two opposing parties is concerned, it was never friendly and neither was it after the negotiations.
There are some acts that were done correctly in the actual negotiations while some could have been better in my opinion. Since it was known that the two individuals did not exactly gelled well together since the past, therefore there should have been separate discussions with them in order to ensure the truthfulness of either party. Being in front of each other aggravated their feelings, which did not result to be of much help for the higher authorities as well.
If I were the representative of the Management Information System (MIS) Officer, who I think was on the right path, the foremost priority of mine would be to collect all data and personnel to prove his authenticity. A representative would have made matters better as it would not have been the direct grudge speaking on the negotiations table. The arguments should have been represented by a third person that was the representative and presented in a logical manner.
The representation of the case by the two individuals involved was more like a competition between who wins the argument than a meeting for dispute settlement. Hence, the lack of representative was direly felt. An individual meeting and satisfaction of both parties would have been a better solution.
Dr. Shachar. (2002).