Skip to main content

Group dynamics - Conflict

In social interactions, especially when it involves more than two people, conflict exists. It is that different people have different ways of processing the same situation, standing and watching the situation from different perspectives, hoping to get to different directions eventually. They may all have good intentions, but still, they are holding completely diverse opinions and solutions. When conflicts emerge, we can list out the core cause all the way to the result, trying to prevent the same or similar conflict from happening again. Solving conflicts and disagreement, after all, can be time-consuming,  which decreases the efficiency and productivity of the entire group.


The fiction situation I picked comes from tv series The Night Shift. It is a series of story depicting a group of night-shift doctors and nurses working at San Antonio Memorial Hospital. Everyone in the doctor group is skillful and professional, whereas they all have different preferences for operating surgeries. Most of the cases during the night shifts are emergent, patients are losing lots of blood because of the unexpected injuries, or they are experiencing severe and acute symptoms. Those doctors are under high pressure, and they have to come up with solutions in seconds. However, there are two most talented doctors who have completely opposite preferences due to their different personalities and experiences. Doctor Callahan is adventurous. He would like to take the most risky way to rescue, to try to save a man’s leg from amputation. The man Rick is Callahan’s friend, he would do anything to maximize Rick’s outcome. But to do it means to prolong the treatment period. The resource and places are limited in ER, meaning other emergency can’t be worked on. However, the other doctor, doctor Clemmens, insists on a different opinion. He thinks Rick must have the amputation surgery as soon as possible. Based on his former working experience, this leg will need this amputation anyway. The nerves and other parts of the leg are already damaged and cannot be repaired. Waiting till the have-to-operate-the-amputation time is unnecessary. It will only be wasting everyone’s time. After the opinions collision, both doctors “agree” (Dr. Clemmens compromises) to wait to see if the leg is capable of not having the amputation, but Dr. Clemmens still think the amputation is going to happen. Eventually, after two days of waiting, Rick’s leg becomes worse and worse as the expectation of Dr. Clemmens and the amputation surgery is completed. 


In my opinion, this conflict can be evitable as long as it does not involve acquaintances. Professionally, Dr. Callahan might agree with Dr. Clemmens on the surgery solution. It is the “friend” element that interferes with his judgments. But every case is different, conflicts like this one may have different results. Dr. Clemmens cannot be right every time. Perhaps for another patient, miracle exists. Although solving conflicts and different opinions takes time, it may bring up the best outcome.

Comments

  1. Professor ArvanNovember 19, 2019 at 2:14 PM

    I know you wrote to me about feeling under the weather, which explains why this post was not timely, but now I can't comment on it.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gift exchange - opportunism

The ideas and theories in the three articles are intriguing. It is not surprising for me when I read some of the theories, such as those of the first and second article. People are more likely to share what they have with people who are in poorer conditions when they know that both parties are collaborating in, or putting effort into, the same goal. It is rarely the case that fairness exists. The rare existence of fairness does not necessarily mean there’s nothing we can do to equalize (or balance) all the parties. There are strategies alleviate the sense of unfairness. “I cut, you pick” and “tit for tat” work not only for children but also work for adults in teams or organizations. As long as both or multiple parties are making similarly equal amount of dedication or sacrifice, people won’t complain about the unfairness. The third article surprised me in that I always think people make choices and decisions for their own benefit. However, in fact, people do not make decision
2 comments
Read more

principal-agent model in real life

The standard principal-agent model involves only two parties, one principal, and one agent. The agent is helping the principal make decisions and actions based on the relatively abundant and professional information it possesses. In real life, however, there are some times one agent working for more than one principal, trying to help both of them better off at the same time. Sometimes due to the incapabilities of communication, work done by agent is not as efficient as it should be with respect to both principals. Furthermore, sometimes the agent utilizes such ineffective communication between the two principals to take advantage of them without neither of them knowing.  The tourism in China can be described as a three-party principal-agent model. The two principals are the local souvenir stores and the tourists, whereas the agent is the tourist agents of the tourism companies. The tourist agents are supposed to do two major jobs for the tourists and the local souvenir stores. Fir
2 comments
Read more

discipline and punishment

Retrospect to the blog post assignment last week, the concept of sharing the marbles was introduced and discussed. It was basically saying that people are more willing to share their possessions with people in the middle of poorer situations when both parties are contributing efforts to the common project or goal. If the distribution of resources is allocated randomly, with no collaboration requiring or existing in the situation, sharing is less likely, if by any chance, happening. Bringing the same topic to a different level, this week, we are going to discuss whether the division of the reward based on the performance will actually improve the performance in the future, or on the contrary, do harm to the relationship among the team members. When making decisions and considerations in groups, the judgment is no longer based merely on the fairness of reward allocation. In fact, all the rewards and penalties are aiming at improving the performance and production in the future. I was
2 comments
Read more