MatthewPowellAA3
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University Of Arizona *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
459
Subject
Industrial Engineering
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by CaptainCamel2956
Matthew Powell
The conflict was developing an ergonomics project. It started on the floor, I noticed that certain team member were bending over and picking up heavy pieces of meat. They were bending over at the waist and picking the meat up with their back. I brought that up to my management team and was connected with our plant engineer, Danielle. Our goal was to cooperatively intact a solution. We were granted a preset budget and a timeline by the senior management team to solve this issue. Initially, I wanted to do observations on how the process ran, whereas she wanted to just put the meat on a pallet jack which could potentially solve the issue. However, I feel we did not have enough information on the issue to try and create a solution at this point. She decided to go against my wishes and move forward with the first solution that was proposed (I.e. the pallet jack). Issues started to arise when we spent a majority of our allotted budget on pallet jacks. Mind you this was the solution that Danielle deemed as best for the scenario. As a result, we set the pallet jacks to a standard height or one and a half feet. Without observation, we overlooked that there were line workers who were short in stature making the pallet jacks too high. When we set up the pallet jacks up for a smaller person, they had to climb up the jacks and get the meat out of the receptacle causing a completely different, arguably more dangerous issue. My next idea was to start from square one and take the pallet jacks away. However, Danielle was adamant that they would work; the smaller workers would just have to step on ergo stands to compensate for the height difference. Of course, this was not a
feasible option as it would still create stress and strain on the line workers back; negating the purpose of this project. At this point in the project, we realized that we were having more issues that solution, we finally compromised on setting the pallet jacks to a non-standard height that was determined by the weight of the receptacle. For example, the lighter the bin got the higher
Matthew Powell
the pallet jack would raise. We also incorporated a side entrance to the receptacle to allow access
to the meat at waist height. The table below (Exhibit A) is the summation of each dimension for the managing a conflict assessment. There is a clear difference is strategies taken from both parties that were involved in the conflict. When looking at my assessment you can tell that I tried to emphasize Scale C (compromise). From the very beginning, I wanted to work as a unit and take both parties
ideas into consideration and work from there. This was not possible in the beginning, as my opposing party was very forceful and took a “my way of the highway” approach. In the end, I pushed for a compromise even though I didn’t believe the pallet jacks were the best solution. Although I wanted to completely eliminate the pallet jacks, I compromised and improved on the pallet jacks’ function to make it feasible for everyone. As for my counterpart, Danielle, she took Scale D (force)as her approach. Danielle was in a higher position than I was, she was more established in the company, and she held on to her ideas and ran with them. In my opinion, Danielle threw the weight of her experience and the ranking of her position around the influence the decisions that we made. Danielle took every opportunity to express that she had more experience and she knew that the pallet jacks were going to solve the issue. Once we realized that height was going to be an issue, she just double downed on her solution instead of admitting she was wrong. This resulted in her not being collaborative and not making many compromises. Although it was difficult to work with someone so polar opposite in strategy, a solution was implemented, and the project was completed. A compromise was reached; however, it was a compromise on my end as she would not budge on the pallet jacks being involved in the solution.
Matthew Powell
Exhibit A
Dimension
Matthew
Danielle
A Scale (Avoid)
24
16
C Scale (Compromise)
34
12
D Scale (Force)
22
32
I Scale (Collaborate)
30
18
O Scale (Accommodate)
22
11
First, to better improve my BATNA, I could have gone into that meeting with observations already done. If I had the observations done, then I would have walked into the meeting with more information on the issue. I also wouldn’t have had to request the observation from the other party. This also would have allowed me to walk into the initial meeting with possible solutions on my end. Second, I could have utilized the Reframe method to better the meeting as it was happening. For example, I could have emphasized that we both want the workers to operate in a safe working environment. I could have reframed the argument to include
myself as part of the solution. Next, I could have also utilized the balcony method. For example, asking Danielle why she thought the pallet jacks were our best option. Utilizing all of these methods could have reduced the level of conflict that we experienced. I also believe that this would better improve my thinking in future projects and collaborations.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help