I’ve seen my fair share of conflicts over the past years. When I look back I come to realize that most of the conflicts arise due to some misunderstanding on part of one or more of the parties involved. Sometimes people in conflict converse with each other with the preconceived notion that the other party is trying to take them for a ride. Due to such prejudice they fail to understand what the other party is trying to say. They merely resort to stressing their own one sided platitudes and the conflict escalates.
I came to hear about an incident in a research institute. The researchers in that facility work on recently developed materials with unknown properties. One day a lab researcher was told to dispose of a chemical in the restroom. The chemical had a brown color and it badly stained the toilet. Next day the cleaning lady informed her company that she was unable to clean the mess. This is where the conflict began. The cleaning company contacted the lab in-charge to talk about the matter. In the conversation the lab in-charge kept on demanding from the company that it’s their job to clean the washrooms, while the company representative kept on stressing that it was not their job to clean chemical waste.
If we analyze the conflict we come to know that both the parties are correct in their stance. However, this does not help in resolving the conflict. The lab in-charge could have suggested some way for dissolving the chemical or the cleaning company could have quoted some extra money for the unusual job. What do you guys think?
Shouldn't there be a proper way of disposing chemicals within the institute? If there isn't, then maybe they should think of protocols or SOPs to follow in disposing of such chemicals. This will prevent occurrence of any similar incidents in the future.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the main factor in this conflict is that both parties are not willing to compromise and also, each of them tries to shirk all responsibility. Both parties could have discussed properly and come to a consensus on the best solution to this problem.
Just curious, how did this situation ended?
Both parties are definitely correct in their stance. This would go all the way back to what was stated in the contract. However, if no such clause was stated, its really up to the managements to resolve this amicably. Perhaps it would have been better if both parties started off courteous and consulted each other for advice instead of an accusatory tone.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, I think the lab is at fault here- they really ought to have a better more standard procedure for disposing off chemical waste. All hospitals do! Imagine if how gross it would be if hospitals started throwing aborted foetuses or amputated body parts along with food waste and plastic in the trash can?? Besides the regular cleaners of toilets etc may not be equipped to deal with chemical waste as was clear in this case. Having said that there's always a nice way of going about resolving differences:))
ReplyDeleteBoth sides think they are right and won't compromise,that's where most conflicts come up.In this case,if the lab have a proper way of diaposing the waste,then the responsibility is not on the lab,Otherwise it's the lab's responsibility.Anyway,since this already happens,one side must compromise a little.If no one compromise there's no way to solve the problem.
ReplyDelete