Conflict Resolution
For every employed individual amongst society the workplace is a breeding ground for conflict. However, there are individuals within the workplace that have developed certain methods to minimize conflict. Whatever method used; communication seems to be the common variable in any successful attempt of minimizing conflict. Joe Phelps, CEO of the Phelps Group has a unique method that has proven effective within his workplace. The Phelps Group has a no rules policy contingent upon the belief that they hire adults who don’t need a set of rules (“Conflict Resolution in the Workplace,” 2013). The no rules policy is an interesting approach to conflict resolution and peacekeeping in the workplace. One may think that this would only create chaos within the workplace, not peace. However, Phelps’ no rules policy is contingent upon directly approaching the individual whom conflict has arisen from and deal with the matter in an adult like manner. If the first method doesn’t resolve conflict the individual is to approach two other coworkers familiar with both in conflict to resolve the matter. If both methods have proven ineffective the last resort is to call in an outside party to the workplace to resolve the conflict. The reasoning behind this conflict resolution approach is to provide employees with a format for communication when conflict arises. The method is an interesting way to create respect and harmony within the workplace as it creates a formal setting for communication. Central to the purpose of conflict resolution is the need for communication. Communication is the key component in problem solving, conflict management, and providing a desired outcome for interaction (Kemp-Longmore, 2000). What Phelps’ has done in a sense is necessitate positive communication over what would otherwise be negative communication. Instead of two co-workers either fighting or holding a grudge against one another, you have two co-workers that are communicating. Phelps’ recognizes the necessity for effective communication as evidenced by his format for conflict resolution. The first step to confront the co-worker the conflict has arisen which may be uncomfortable, but Phelps has recognized this as an essential step to cope with a problem. This serves two purposes. The first purpose is that the individual feeling offense, or conflicted is able to speak his or her mind to the co-worker and receive feedback. Whether positive or negative feedback is given is not as important as the conflict being aired to the other person. The co-worker on the receiving end can then provide feedback as to the conflict at hand. The conflict has now been brought to both workers understanding as it has now been communicated to one another. The conflict would most likely be dismissed immediately if there was a misunderstanding, a mistake, or an apology given. Phelps’ “adult hiring only” philosophy should most likely resolve the problem at this point as two grown adults should be able to resolve most conflicts within the workplace. The second step of introducing two other co-workers to the conflict is an interesting approach to resolution as the employees are to be familiar with one another. The two invited employees obviously have insight into the job duties performed, tasks at hand, and methodology among the workplace so may be able to give helpful insight into the conflict at hand and the best way to solve the conflict as not to affect the company in a negative way. The employees called in would also have insight into the character traits of the conflicted workers. Who knows, the employees called in to mitigate may have possibly had a similar conflict within the workplace.
The third method of conflict resolution brings an outside presence to mitigate the conflict at hand. This outsider is brought in to assess the conflict with no bias opinion towards either worker or the company and the performance(s) that may, or may not be affected by the conflict. The outsider is also using the form of communication to listen to each workers proposition and provide feedback to each individual as well. At this point there is a good chance both parties are not only exhausted over arguing, but are probably embarrassed that the company has had to bring in an outsider to resolve the conflict. This lengthy proceeding has undoubtedly given both workers time to evaluate their part in the conflict and may have come to realize that the conflict has been blown out of proportion and should have been handled via the first step in the face to face resolution conversation. Without a formal conflict resolution platform the two co-workers could essentially create dissention amongst not only each other, but the entire workplace as well. When conflict is not resolved, it has the tendency to take on a life of its own and eventually create damages that could have otherwise been prevented (Kemp-Longmore, 2000). The sound of a no rules philosophy at work does sound like it would do nothing but create chaos. However, Phelps’ emphasis on hiring adults only creates a workplace environment that enforces communication as adults should all communicate. Rules are for the school yard and a workplace is for the professional adult. Phelps suggests acting as such.

References
Conflict Resolution in the Workplace. (2013, November, December). Office Solutions, 20(6), 46-47.
Kemp-Longmore, C. (2000, February). Conflict Resolution in the Workplace. Black Collegian, 30(2), 131.