Interactions between people do not always occur without a hitch. People defer, not only physically, but in their opinions and mindsets.
I experienced my interpersonal conflict during my term of office in one of the committees I served in Sheares Hall, one of the 6 halls of residence in NUS. The committee’s chief responsibility was to manage the affairs of the Hall.
There is a particular member (lets call him William) William who is well known for his uncompromising attitude and ‘independence’. As a committee, we were supposed to discuss proposals during the meetings and come up with a plan that will benefit all after listening to each other’s views and opinions. At one point, however, William was making decisions on his own without consulting the committee in advance.
This happened during the CCA point allocation exercise. (Points are needed to continue staying in hall.) William was in charge of the points being given out to the residents based on the activities they participated in. Rightly, he would have to communicate his decisions to us for our overall approval. He, however, did not do so as ‘it was too troublesome and inefficient’ (quoting him).
The exercise lasted for a few weeks. Initially, all went well and there were no conflicts or unfairness. However, as time progresses, we started noticing certain people getting more points then they should.
When other members, myself included, got wind of what he had done, we decided to confront him. We sat down and enquired about his actions. However, instead of coming clean and admitting to his dishonesty, he defended his actions by saying that these people deserved to be given the points as they have contributed immensely to the hall and are important for continuity. We, on the other hand, noticed that many of these people are his friends and raised the point. An argument ensued which ended with William slamming the table and storming out of the room.
The problem was rectified in the end and the rightful amount of points deserved by the residents was restored. This incident, however, has created a schism between William and the rest of the committee and this animosity have remained until this day. The lack of communication between William and the rest of us has resulted in a situation where he felt unaccountable for his actions and thus allowed him to make decisions that will benefit him or anybody close to him. Are we partially to be blamed for not being effective communicators as well? What could we do now to alleviate this detestation among us?
Final reflections
-
ES2007S has been an unforgettable experience. I still remember thinking
that the workload seemed really heavy when Jivs first suggested we take
this modu...
14 years ago
Hi Jon,
ReplyDeleteClearly the refusal to communicate with the rest of the committee has given William the chance to pursue his 'personal interest of getting his friends back into Hall'. With that being barred, of course any interpersonal conflict and discourse will arise sooner or later, especially if something goes wrong!
On your side, the complacency of the committee members, and perhaps the lack of appreciation of 'teamwork and democracy' (sounds like a certain county we live in =p) may be one of the reasons to William being able to get away with this initially.
Also, perhaps you guys came on too hard on William, accusing him of things that he might not have done! Did he admit in the end about what you all accused him off? Or it just resolved by itself?
Hi Jon,
ReplyDeleteDue to the sensitive nature of point allocation (we all know how important points are to many students), it will probably be wiser for the whole committee to be involved in the point allocation exercise from the beginning. Sometimes bureaucracy is there for a reason. For example, if a company does not keep a proper record of its accounts because it finds it "troublesome and inefficient" to do so, corruption may go unnoticed. Thus, if the committee was supposed to collectively agree on the way points are allocated, it probably should have insisted on this at the beginning.
Also, the way in which the committee talked to him about the matter was not very clear. Did the committee go with the opinion that William was guilty of siding with his friends, and kept forcing him to own up to his actions? This might have forced William to adopt a defensive attitude. Probably the best way to approach this situation is to go with an open mind and listen to William's explanation. Since he claimed that his friends had done more and deserved more points, it might be good to raise examples of other people who did the same amount of work but did not receive the same number of points. If your accusations were based on cold, hard facts, it might be easier to get William to come clean about his actions.
One possible suggestion to resolve your differences with William is to make an effort to communicate more with him. If both parties refuse to communicate anymore, the situation will probably never improve. I am not sure how well this approach works though. If you try it, do let us know.
Ronnie
Hi Jon,
ReplyDeleteAlthough it seems that the majority of the fault should go to William, I do believe that things would have turn out better if there was effective communication within the committee. Ronnie is right to point out that bureaucracy is there for a very valid reason. Although it takes much effort and communication to enact the protocols and guidelines, one cannot deny the fact that such actions are crucial for the proper functioning of the committee and its activities.
Right now, I believe it should be quite awkward for any party when William bumps into anyone else of the ex-committee. I do think that if you guys really want to alleviate “this detestation”, it is in the best interest of everyone to discuss it in a face-to-face setting. It is also advisable to bring in some third party to be the middle man and help to mend the “gap” between the rest of the committee and him. This third party should also be preferably someone impartial and close to William. This will definitely lend support to your case in trying to convince William that while all of you are at fault to some extent, he should have exercised more integrity and transparency when awarding the CCA points. You all can also highlight the cases where some of the innocent victims of his actions did not receive a fair amount of CCA points and thus were ejected from the hall. Certainly, the rest of the committee should also take some of the blame and admit that there should have been more effective communication, control and sharing of responsibilities for such an important CCA point allocation exercise.
All in all, given that there wasn’t much damage done ultimately, I do believe it is best for everyone to reunite, forget about this unpleasant episode and start things afresh without the unhealthy on-going animosity.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Jon, for sharing this conflict scenario with us. This seems to be a very relevant issue for students to consider. I think I get the main gist, which is that Willian acted on his own in allocating points to other hall members for their activities. What I don't understand is this:
ReplyDelete1) When you state: "As a committee, we were supposed to discuss proposals during the meetings and come up with a plan that will(would) benefit all after listening to each other’s views and opinions. At one point, however, William was making decisions on his own without consulting the committee in advance."
Do you mean to say that William was making decisions during the meeting--which would be strange--- or after the meeting---which is more logical, but which doesn't follow from what you have written?
2) Was William given thius task to do alone?
3) Was there no oversight? Or is that the crux of the problem? Your committe (name?) was supposed to overview William and his actions?
4) What are you asking your readers to solve? Avoiding "detestation"? (Check the dictionary on that word, please.)
Another problem area here for me is verb tense use. Can you review that and make the needed edits?
You've received some good feedback. I appreciate your hard work!
@Brad
ReplyDeleteThanks Brad for your feedback. Some clarifications are in order.
1) William was making decisions on his own as he did not bring up the matter to the committee for discussion. Thus the committee has no hand in reaching the decisions handed down by him
2) Yes he was given the task to do alone but checking back with the committee once he has distributed the points for the committee's overall approval (something which he did not do).
3) The oversight was to come in when he gives the feedback, which he did not do so. Thus, at the beginning there was a lack of oversight on the committee's part. However, once the news reach our ears, we acted to right what has gone wrong.
4) Detestation - a strong hatred or dislike (Yes this is what we are feeling currently)
I am asking my readers for their opinion on how to go about mending our relationship with William.
Jon
Jon!
ReplyDeleteHmm. Firstly, why did William believe that going through the committee was going to be "too troublesome and inefficient"? Although he should not have stormed off after making this comment, maybe there is some truth too it. Maybe, just possibly, he did try doing things by the book but this just was too slow a process? Hence he decided to do it his own way? You'll should probably ask him to elaborate on this comment of his.
As for allocating points, is there a rule book to follow? Maybe he needs to be briefed on again. Also, it may help if you'll voice out your concerns as to why it is necessary to follow the rule book (like brief on the value of meritocracy). Maybe he is from a different country (different internal filter) where people do not usually abide by the rules. So explaining all this, though may seem obvious, may be what he needs to remind his of his duty and how the system her works.
And lastly, even though it may seem odd that his friends got higher points then they deserved to, this may purely be coincidental. Or maybe these friends of his did do more than was required of them. So he probably thought that they deserved more. Get his side of the story on this.
Give him a day or two to cool off. Then get someone from the committee with whom he is closer to talk to him.
imho =)