The first thing that the administrator should do is to separate her emotions about losing her job if she does not support the construction of the new facility from her decision-making process. The administrator should then set up a meeting with the current director and the chief of nursing to prepare and plan for the board meeting. They need to take into account the current issues affecting the facility and the fact that the chairman of the board (COB) wants to leave and rebuild in a new area of the city. The type of conflict between the administrator and the COB is considered a dyadic conflict. Still, since the director and chief of nursing are involved, it can also be regarded as intergroup conflict (Robbins & Judge, 2018, p. 228). The administrator and the COB are in stage three of the conflict process, where the intentions demonstrate both sides are competing for their “own” interests (Robbins & Judge, 2018, p. 231). The administrator should prepare the facts about why it is best to complete the safety work and repairs and then highlight the money they will save. The administrator and her team should also appeal to the other board members to share their concerns for the sixty long-term residents that will be affected by this decision. The board members should know that the city officials also want CozyHome to stay and are revitalizing this part of the city.

The COB will have to prepare the other board members to see his reasoning behind changing locations and will have to show them a detailed business plan that outlines the stages at which the business can be profitable. The COB’s behavior and competing intentions show that he is not working together with the administrator and should consider collaborating instead to find a solution that works for everyone (Robbins & Judge, 2018, p. 232). The COB and board members may also need to consider compromising on what happens to the current residents and their family members by offering a timeline that works and offers them some other option for housing (Robbins & Judge, 2018, p. 232). Both parties should also determine their BATNA (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement) to avoid an impasse during the negotiations (Robbins & Judge, 2018, p. 237).

Since the COB had an outburst over the phone with the administrator and abruptly hung up the phone during their conversation, I would have the following ground rules in place to avoid any disruptions from any party. First, the meeting will take place at a neutral location where no one party has the upper hand (Robbins & Judge, 2018, p. 238). Second, I will decide on who will do the negotiating for both parties (Robbins & Judge, 2018, p. 238). Lastly, I will follow a specific procedure if an impasse is reached (Robbins & Judge, 2018, p. 238).

The goal at this point is to reach the closure and implementation stages of the negotiation process. To accomplish closure, we need to reduce interpersonal conflict by using the following approaches. The first approach I would use is to have both parties select the parts of the solution that are most important to them and pinpoint how we can meet those needs for each side (Robbins & Judge, 2018, p. 233). The second approach is to air the differences of opinion of each party early so that if an issue arises, they have already aired them openly, which can allow them to meet in the middle (Robbins & Judge, 2018, p. 233). My third option is to keep personal motivations out of the equation and prioritizing the shared interest of both sides to avoid disagreements turning into barriers to closure and implementation (Robbins & Judge, 2018, p. 233). My hope in these negotiations would be to get both parties to see each other’s points and find a mutually agreeable solution.

References