To reflect on a
situation where collaboration was essential to achieving a resolution was when I
was faced with the decision of hiring an individual for my program. I was the
President of the interviewing board along with a panel of four other
individuals. Levine (2009) discussed that in order to to have a more productive
and satisfying relationship is to begin all collaborations with an agreement
for results in the beginning of the initial meet and greet within a group.
(p.164) The five of us all knew each other prior to us being compiled together
as a board for this new job position that was announced and we knew what the
task, conditions, and standards were base off policy and operating procedures
for the hiring process. The criteria for the interviewees were laid out in a
check list and scoring sheet. We came to an agreement that we will choose the
best qualifying candidate and focus on three important criteria which was their
work experience, former evaluation reports (Army document), and their
potential.
The interviews were
completed and we narrowed down our decision to two candidates. It was quite
difficult to choose between the two because you had one who was fully qualified
with experience, evaluation reports were fair, and potential was fair as well.
Then we had the other candidate with fair experience, but very high ratings
with his evaluation reports and his potential. Me personally, I wanted to make
the decision of hiring the one with high ratings in potential and his
evaluation reports. Because in my opinion, it would be easy for the individual
to catch up on the experience part. That is where the conflict came to life,
the other board members did not agree with myself and one other in the hiring
of the individual discussed. They were solely focused on the criteria that was
given by the policy and score sheets for the hiring process. After a day of deliberation,
we eventually became at a stale mate, which left the ultimate decision to
myself. I always believed in progression, the future, and what is best for my
organization. I ended up choosing the individual who I thought was the right
one from the beginning.
This caused conflict
within the ranks and was challenged by the other board members and brought all
the way up to our Adjutant General for further review. The review was
overturned and the justification of preventing an Inspector General
investigation was imminent. The ultimate vision as stated earlier was to pick
who was best for the organization. The other board members or (stakeholders)
simply explained their roles on overturning my decision. Ultimately at the end
it was for the best (although it took a while for it to sink in).
Five ways I believe that
the stakeholders involvement (if collaborated in the first place) would be for
effective decision making would be Efficiency, openness, trust (performance
agreements), articulating a vision together, and establish clear conditions of
satisfaction as a team, (Levine, 2009) Having efficiency with the stakeholders
provides a workable agreement and creating a shared vision. Then there is
openness, if all of us are open to each other’s understanding of what we saw as
the right choice moving forward we probably would not have had any issues. Trust
goes hand in hand with being open to each other and ensuring that the decisions
being made although we disagree, the trust that the decision being made will be
for the best in our organization. Then finally establishing clear conditions of
satisfaction as a team, which simply put, at the end of the day we compromise
and come up with a solution for the betterment of the organization.
For me personally, I did
not achieve my objective, as stated earlier I wanted the individual to prove we
can in fact change the culture of the more experienced worker with the more
potential based worker with a better work output for the organization. However,
the “right” way had to be implemented and the other person was chosen. Looking
back at it, I do not think there was anyone other than the board members who
can influence the decision, I mean we did get our Adjutant General involved,
but it was inevitable.
If there were three ways
I can use this as a tool for making decisions in the future I simply would as
Levine (2009) discussed as having an intent and vision. In any interview board
in the future I would lay down the intent and vision to include input from the
other stakeholders (board members). (p. 169) the second would be to establish a
renegotiation term if any decisions were not in concurrence. Simply put to come
to a compromise within the board. (p. 164) then finally coming down to an
Agreement, if we as a team could come to an agreement without any outside
interference or recommendations I believe things would run and be conducted in
a much smoother practice compared to getting those who are above us involved.
Reference:
Levine, S. (2009). Getting to resolution: Turning conflict
into collaboration. San Francisco: Barrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
No comments:
Post a Comment