Course Title: Dealing with Conflict at the Workplace
Learner Analysis
Demographics
- Age: 25-40
- Male/female ratio: 1:1
- Language: American English
- Educational Background: Graduates and Post graduates
Psychographic
- Learner goal and expectations: Handle conflicts efficiently to perform better
- Motivation: Low-medium
- Minimum prior knowledge about the content
- Primary audience: Indian, middle level managers
- Computer literate
- Medium of Delivery: Computer-Based Training
Requirements Analysis
- Computer-Based Training
- Duration of Course: 1 hour
- Application-Based Course: Bloom’s level 1, 2, 3
- Access to SME for content validation
- Business Goal: Equip middle-managers and supervisors in an organization to:
-
- Understand the concept of conflicts.
- Identify conflict situations.
- Understand their basic response to conflict situations.
- Recognize the causes and consequences of conflicts.
- Comprehend the use of conflict resolution tools, such as mediation, negotiation, and group problem-solving.
- Resolve conflict situations at the workplace.
- Avoid conflicts at the workplace.
Constraints
- High interactivity on a low budget
- CBT-based solution
- Tight schedule (6-week delivery cycle)
- Dynamic and iterative development cycle
Based on information provided in project details, can you identify the best approach to design the course?
Our ID team at Kern had a brainstorming session to identify the appropriate strategy for the course. At the end of the brainstorming session, we came out with numerous possibilities. You can have a look at the strategies listed below and see if you would adopt any of them for the course:
Approach 1: Semi-simulation
- Theme
- The learner is taken to another world.
- He/she is introduced to a team.
- Learner witnesses exaggerated conflict situations - people are fighting with each other, cat fights, people walking all over another person, people stepping over other’s head to climb the corporate ladder, flirting with the boss to avoid work, people forcing new recruits to do all the “dirty” work)
- Tasks
- Learner will make decisions by identify the conflicts and taking measures to resolve them.
- Based on the learner’s decisions, the situation will either get worse or better.
- Rationale
- Learning by doing – Learner will make decisions and face consequences of these decisions.
Approach 2: Semi Simulation
- Theme
- Learner is shown two contrasting work environments. A setting full of conflict issues while the other is an ideal setting.
- Task
- Show an expert identifying and resolving problems in the perfect world.
- Apply learning in the conflict-driven world.
- Rationale
- The learner will:
-
- Learning through observation: Watch an expert in action and learn
- Learning by doing: Learner will apply the skills learnt through observation
Approach 3: Simulation
- Theme
- One day as a manager: The learner has been appointed as a manager and he/she has to tackle all the problems that come in the way.
- If the learner is not able to solve the problem immediately, it will become a bigger problem later.
- Learner will have access information which he/she can look at to gain some insight into the problems and ways to handle it.
- The learner could also be guided by a mentor. The learner will decide the path based on decisions taken.
- Tasks
- The learner has to pass three phases to emerge a winner.
- In the first phase, he/she will identify conflicts. In the second phase, he/she will identify types and in the third phase, he/she will resolve conflicts. It will include decision-making.
- Rationale
- Learning by doing: The learner will be actively involved in the decision-making process. The learner will thrust in scenarios where he has to deal with the situations and emerge successful.
Approach 4: Semi-Simulation
- Theme
- Investigative: The learner is required to backtrack to find out what went wrong.
- Move back in time to find out the root cause of this problem.
- The course can have a black and white look adding mystery.
- The learner will take the role of a detective.
- Tasks
- Problem-solving approach: The learner will see the sequence of events that resulted in a conflict situation.
- A co-detective will act as a mentor through the course. He will provide hints and clues if the learner gets stuck.
- He solves one type of problem and leaves clues about solving the others.
- Rationale
- Learning by doing - The learner will solve the conflict situations. He/she will be able to take the help of the co-detective.
We went ahead and adopted one of the above strategies to create the course. Which strategy would you choose? Share your thoughts with us and we can have a discussion on the merits of the strategies suggested and used.
This post has been viewed 47 times.
Share this
12th October, 2006 at 12:09 pm
Hi!
I think first approach 4 (semi-simulation) should be used and then approach 3 (simulation). This is because in approach 4 they can learn through some hand-holding also, though they will not be completely dependent on the mentor. It will make them feel comfortable with the medium instruction, lend a personal touch, and also stretch them.
12th October, 2006 at 12:29 pm
Thanks for your input Soma! Good choice! Approach 4 sounds very interesting, doesn’t it?
The problem we had with this strategy while brainstorming was that we were unable to visualize the backward chaining effectively. Since conflict can exist in different ways, it became important to let the learner see all types of conflict and various situations in which it can exit. Also, this course had three modules. We came to the conclusion that the detective theme may loose its novelty towards the end.
We used approach 3, the simulation. We introduced a theme and gave the learner the role of a manager. He was also introduced to a team of 6 members and was asked to solve the problems that came in his path.
I think depending on your learner profile you can decide whether hand holding is required or not.
11th December, 2006 at 9:48 am
Hi Archana,
true that the right approach can effectively be selected based on what and how much the audience already knows about the subject. Therefore, if the audience is already well versed with the common types of conflicts tat exist in the workplace, then i guess the Approaches 3 and 4 cud be selected where the learner is thrown straight into messy situations and has to come out as a winner, a true conflict resolver. However, if this meant for learners who have no clue what conflict resolution actually means in the workplace, and the steps to identify or its types, then i guess some amount of knowledge will hv to be served to them on a platter before they actually be made to resolve a conflict, but maybe interactively, if not passively. In such cases, i guess using the approach of contrasting situations may help (Approach 2). However, yes, once they have gained enough theoretical knowledge about the subject matter and are well equipped to make decisions, then i suggest going for Approaches 3 or 4; 3 more specifically, because as u correctly point Approach 4 will get slightly restrictive in giving them good and overall practice.
So, that bring us to another great point, that you could also make a good mix of the above approaches.
The key is to choose the right approach simply based on what your learners already know and what they seek to know.
I express my kudos to the person who thought of all the 4 brilliant approaches…great thoughts…was this a result of a team brainstorming session? looks like it.
Let me know what you think about my thoughts.
regds,
Kanishka #9892168590
12th December, 2006 at 5:54 am
Hi Kanishka,
“The key is to choose the right approach simply based on what your learners already know and what they seek to know.” You have summarized the point very well.
To answer your query, the four approaches were a result of a brainstorming session. It is a very useful exercise. Main rules are:
1. Participants should have all information about the learners and the content.
2. Participants list all possible ideas that come to their mind.
3. After the ideas are jotted down, participants relook as each idea in detail.
4. No ideas are shot down. Healthy discussions will take place.
5. Majority consensus is crucial.
We regularly conduct brainstorming sessions to generate the best ideas. It is a very satisfying experience. Thanks very much for contributing to this discussion.
7th August, 2007 at 11:47 am
Hi Archana,
Approach 3 was an excellent choice, but I would have given Approach 1 my vote, albeit with a few modifications. Being essentially a learning game, a little mentoring element could be added to it… maybe feedback of the consequences the learner will face once s/he makes a choice, and so on.
Actually, a mix of these approaches (which I’m sure must have happened as the concept developed) would be the perfect choice!
It’s commendable that you conduct brainstorming sessions for your courses—it just goes to prove that two (or more) heads are better than one!
I look forward to your analysis of my selection of approach.
8th August, 2007 at 4:49 am
Hi Amit,
Approach 1 was our next choice too! Actually, our learner profile showed that people were not very sure of what situations could be categorized as conflict situations. So it became necessary to start with some basics. Approach 3 had a nice blend of information and learning by doing. Many times if the brainstorming is not comprehensive enough, you realize at a much later stage that the selected approach will not hold for the entire course duration. We expected this to happen with approach 1 as what we needed to cover was pretty extensive and it had a logical path.
All our projects begin with a brainstorming session and over the years this session has become more detailed. This really helps as all IDs, reviewers and graphic designers are on the same page. You are absolutely right! When it comes to generating newer ideas, having more heads really helps. Also, having fresher minds in terms of younger people also helps.
Keep sharing your thoughts.
Cheers,
Archana