https://www.topgradeaccountants.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/LOGO-TG1.png 0 0 milton https://www.topgradeaccountants.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/LOGO-TG1.png milton2020-08-03 00:23:432020-08-03 00:23:43Running head: CRITICAL THINKING IN ACTIONCritical Thinking in ActionStudentâ??s NameInstitutionCours
Running head: CRITICAL THINKING IN ACTIONCritical Thinking in ActionStudentâ€™s NameInstitutionCourse InstructorDate1CRITICAL THINKING IN ACTION2The conflict developing in this case is that on June 7, John Schmidt, an employee ofthe company, has been severely injured on his hand when pushing a large piece of woodthrough a table saw in the production shop. Therefore, John claims that he followed theprocedures when working, and the company is legible for his injuries. According to him, themachine had no guarantee of keeping the employee safe when working. As for the companyâ€™smanager, David Donald, he tends to claim that the machine was in a safe condition since hewas not informed by the shop foreman, Harry Hiller claims that the machine was in need offixing. On the other hand, Harry Hiller asserts that the machine was in a perfect condition andcould produce the written records. Harry continues arguing that he saw the employee joking,laughing and goofing around with a co-worker. On the other hand, a colleague to the injuredemployee raise claims that despite regular maintenance of the table, it wasnâ€™t safe since thesafety guard was poorly designed and didnâ€™t function proficiently. He further claims that heforwarded his concerns to the foreman about his concerns on the issue of security, but hedidnâ€™t take vital steps. Hence, when a health and safety report was done, it showed that thesafeguard was poorly designed to protect operators in such circumstance.In bit of trying to analyse the case it is important to substantially note the conditionswhich contribute to John claiming that the company should be held responsible for hisinjuries, and David claiming that the employee should not blame them for the injuries.Considering the case of John, he argues that the cause of his injuries is as a result of poordesign the machine has to protect operators when performing their daily duties. But on theother hand, David claims that the machine is in a perfect condition and if it had a problem.His foreman Harry would have informed him. Harry further claims that he saw John with hisco-workers laughing and goofing which could have lead to the accident. Thus, the blamegame between the employee, foreman and the manager tends to be the resultant factor of thisproblem.CRITICAL THINKING IN ACTION3Therefore, it would be appropriate if I could develop some vital questions that wouldsupport me in trying to analyse and address such an issue. First, should John claim that thecompany is liable for his injuries? If so what appropriate measures should he had taken? Also,if the enterprise is responsible what should they do to John? On the other side what should bedone to John if it is known that the business is not liable for the injuries? As the foremanstated that the machine was in a perfect condition who should be blamed if the machine wasincapacitated.In the bit of trying to analyse and scan the environment where one can source outrelevant information regarding the conflict. We will be looking at the different evidenceproduced by the employeeâ€™s party and the company. For instance, on the employee side Johnclaims that the business is liable for his injuries because the machine being used was not in aproper condition for their safety. He receives backup from one of his colleagues that they hadinformed Harry concerning the state of the machine, but he never took any vital step. On theother hand, we also note that David claims that if the machine had any problems he would beinformed by Harry. Whereas, Harry brought claims that he had substantial evidence thatcould show that the device had received some maintenance. The significant challenge thattends to block the companyâ€™s proof of reliability is the health and safety the report. Accordingto this report, safety guard was poorly designed to protect operators in some circumstances.Here, we will be looking at how reliable are evidence provided by the two parties.John claiming that the company is liable for his injuries tends not to be reliable since he wasaware that the machine was not in a stable condition with his work experience. He shouldhave being more careful and raise claims to the manager for the machine maintaining. Thecompany also tends not to provide reliable data because Harry claims that he had records thatthe company had done repairs on the computer, but the report on health tends to communicateotherwise regarding this matter.CRITICAL THINKING IN ACTION4In this situation, attempting to put out information in a logic and organized mannertends to show some conflict between Harry and companyâ€™s employee. Thus, one can clearlyobserve trends conflict between managers and staff. For example, Harry trying to instigatethat John is liable for his injuries because he saw John and his fellow employees laughing andjoking while operating the machine and this led to Harry insinuating that these employeeswere not serious with their work but this wasnâ€™t the case. Another incident occurred when oneof the employees claimed that he had informed the foreman of the machines condition, butwe observe Harry providing scripts with evidence that the device had received somemaintenance.Hence, it becomes clear that the main problem, tends to be manager and employeeconflict. Therefore, if one tries to source the background of this conflict you may note theremust have been a reason for the two parties to conflict. For instance, there might have been acommunication disorder (Armstrong, 2011). Such acts tend to be brought by poorinformation, lack of information and misinformation in the company. For example, theforeman might not have given sufficient information to the employees regarding the machinewhich led to the accident. Another factor that may result in such a conflict is emotionsbecause letting emotions drive one tends to increase the viability of a conflict and such acts ofbeing emotional are brought by greed of power by individual in the company.Therefore, consequences of such a conflict are reduction in productivity because a lotof time is wasted, team factor which is a significant factor in production is terminated,wastage of resources since most managers tend to attend to conflict matters rather thanperforming their jobs, conflict in an organization tends to tarnish the integrity of anorganization leading to massive losses, conflicts also result in miscommunication along anorganization, it may also affect person health mentally, conflict tends to promote violence thatCRITICAL THINKING IN ACTION5creates tension among employees, and members may decide to leave the group due toviolence (Arnold,2003).Therefore, the company should consider the following steps when trying to solve themanager-employee conflict. They might consider coming together and talking with eachother to at least reduce the tension between the two parties, focus more on behavioural andevents rather than personalities, decide to identify points they agree and disagree on andensure they developed a plan to solve each conflict.From our case, we identify some conflict between the managers and employees. Tosufficiently certify this it will be appropriate to produce substantial evidence. For instance, anemployee informed foreman about the machine status, but due to communication disorder itresulted in the accident that occurred to John. We also tend to analyse that John was driven byhis emotions and believed that the organization was liable for his injuries.It is also important to consider that employees tried to improvise use of propercommunication according to our context (Phillips, 2001). But foreman was ignorant andnever responded to their plea. Hence, such acts of using communications should be kept athand by companies to ensure efficiency. The only unattainable solution is that the company isconsidered to be corrupt which diminishes the value of the enterprise.Therefore, it would serve the company ethically right if the manager decides to takepart and solve the issue (Bennett, 2009). The slow he becomes in handling such matter tendsto ruin the business in terms of growth and profits. Hence, the faster the problem is solved,employees become satisfied resulting to an increase in growth viability.CRITICAL THINKING IN ACTION6ReferencesArmstrong, M. (2011). How to be an even better manager: A complete A-Z of proventechniques and essential skills. London: Kogan Page.Phillips, B. A. (2001). The mediation field guide: Transcending litigation and resolvingconflicts in your business or organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Arnold, J. D. (2003). When the sparks fly: Resolving conflicts in your organization. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.In Gruber, H. E., & University of Colorado (Boulder campus). (1962). Contemporaryapproaches to creative thinking: A symposium held at the University of Colorado.Bennett, J. G. (2009). Creative thinking. Charles Town, W. Va: Claymont Communications.