Combat Readiness Clinic (CRC) is in the spotlight because of the conflicts jeopardizing the achievement of its set objectives. The type of conflict at CRC is intragroup conflict between doctors and staff, and one of the key causes is underreporting mishaps. Intragroup conflict is common in healthcare organizations such as CRC because roles and responsibilities are executed at different administrative levels (Paletz, Schunn, & Kim, 2011). Effective communication is important in healthcare organizations, and this means that the lower level employee such as the nurse should inform the physician of the condition or any complication surrounding the patient. The physician also has the responsibility of reporting the same to the organization’s top managers. However, this kind of channel in the communication process is not always followed by the staff of various healthcare organizations, and thus, leads to underreporting mishaps and eventual conflicts between different administrative levels. Apart from ineffective communication among staff, intragroup conflicts in healthcare organizations such as CRC can be caused by poor performance of staff at different administrative levels (Paletz, Schunn, & Kim, 2011). For instance, when top managers perform poorly, this may not go down well with physicians and nurses. Earlier resolution of intragroup conflicts remains the only way out of preventing employee turnovers in healthcare organizations. To solve the intragroup conflict at CRC, techniques such as improving dialogue, having more of face-to-face meetings, and emphasizing feedback would be pivotal. Moreover, using conflict models such as the SOAR model would also help address the intragroup conflict at CRC. With the SOAR model, the focus would be on the organization’s strengths, opportunities, aspirations, and results, which would prompt the involvement of every staff, and automatically doing away with the existing intragroup conflict.
NMOTC, which is also a healthcare organization, is experiencing conflict that is holding back the organization, and failure to address the conflict could be one of the reasons for its downfall in the coming future. Although the type of conflict at NMOTC is not clear, the main reason for the existing conflict is the complexity of the organization’s structure and policies (Borkowski, 2016). Organizational leaders and managers have the responsibility of ensuring that organizational structures and policies are simple and can be understood by every staff member. This is one of the steps that ought to be taken by healthcare organizations, in particular, in solving incessant conflicts between one individual and the other or between one group and the other. For NMOTC, other than having simpler and understandable policies and structure, analysis of strengths may allow the adaptation of the command structure and policies to the day-to-day operations at the organization. It is also important for the leadership or management of NMOTC to ensure there is a balance of power, stable economic situation, good history of the organization, as well as an integration of all cultures in the organization’s operations (Borkowski, 2016). Use of conflict models such as the SOAR model and Social Cubism would help solve the conflict at NMOTC. The SOAR model, for instance, would ensure that the staff is aware of and focus more on the organization’s strengths, opportunities, aspirations, and results, and through this, there would be no room for conflicts. With Social Cubism, the management of NMOTC would strive to ensure there is balance of power, economic stability, and integration of every cultural element in day-to-day operations of the organization. Addressing of the conflict at NMOTC would see it realize its vision of becoming the world leader in operational medicine training and support.
Borkowski, N. (2016). Organizational behavior in health care (3rd ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Paletz, S. B., Schunn, C. D., & Kim, K. H. (2011). Intragroup conflict under the microscope: Micro‐conflicts in naturalistic team discussions. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 4(4), 314-351.