Discussion Board Topic: Bringing Out the Best Through Conflict1)The author suggests that the topic of conflict management is slippery because people cannot be easily directed and controlled, so theories on effective processes are constantly evolving. Based on Note on Conflict Management, the concept of differentiation is critical to gaining knowledge about your organization's true strengths and weaknesses. Select one of the four links on page 8 (culture, authority, customer satisfaction, and management control) and suggest improvements that can be made to your workplace (prior or current). Support your ideas with documentation from the articleExample response from another student to the question aboveIn my opinion, culture affects conflict management in my place of employment. My agency has a history of working in silos, struggling with teaming and collaboration, managing by fear, intimidation and punitive action, and lack of care and concern for staff. This directly impacts the safety, wellbeing and permanence of the children we serve, how we engage family, along with staff performance and retention. Modes of conflict management was usually avoiding, smoothing, unilaterally or by force. I have often been baffled by the way some managers manage their staff instead of lead; prohibiting them from growing, sharpening their clinical and critical thinking skills. Instead, we have social workers who follow directives and will actually admit that “I’m doing this because my supervisor/program manager/administrator told me to do so” even though all case carrying social workers in my agency have completed graduate school and passed a licensure exam. How can a social worker be expected to make a clinical decision about a family if they are not permitted to think critically? This sometimes leads to conflict between my team and case carrying social workers because there is an expectation that they will clearly articulate barriers or concerns regarding the safety and wellbeing of a child. If the message is confusing to my team, it is most likely confusing to the family. Additionally, my team’s focus is to ensure the family’s voice is heard while the social worker’s focus appears to be, in many instances, to check off a box to close a case to meet a deadline. Instead, family team meetings are most viable when our team is given the opportunity to fully engage families and their supports, determine family dynamics, assess for potential conflicts, and ensure that the right stakeholders are present to develop a quality plan. It makes sense to involve families and their supports to be a part of the plan because they take ownership toward their own successful case closure. To resolve some of these issues my agency has begun to involve middle managers and front line workers in the decision making process about how to improve the overall work environment. Multidisciplinary team have been establish to support social workers in how to move forward in difficult cases. Senior management has embraced confronting issues (to some degree), allowing different perspectives in the room to brainstorm about ideas, processes and procedures that directly impact staff. Additional training is provided to improve critical thinking, develop leadership skills, self care, etc. 2)Discussion Board Bonus Post: Favorite Reading in Negotiations and Conflict ManagementI am requesting your input on a new article or a new book chapter that particularly impresses you on our course topic -- preferably 30 pages or fewer. When I say "new," I mean distinct from your assigned readings. The article may explore any advanced aspect of negotiations or conflict management. It would be ideal if your suggestion were available through Business Source Complete. While this is an optional assignment, your post will count toward your topic score on the Forum Statistics table. More importantly, I will be grateful for your contribution to this curriculum and for sharing a valuable lesson with your classmates.Discussion Question # 1: Do the sunbeam deals calls into question the credibility of AMA?'EXAMPLE FROM ANOTHER STUDENT BELOW TO THE QUESTION ABOVEIt is clear, in my opinion, that the AMA was more interested in making money than improving the health of patients. Throughout this article the AMA lobbied, collaborated, or disagreed with anything that was outside of physicians making money. With the decline in members and income, the AMA “suffering from a cash sneeze” and need more revenue. The negative public perception of the association was that they were more interested in padding physicians’ pockets than “educating them and having a patient’s interest at heart”. There is little to no research about the products and how doctors would endorse the validity of the function or benefit of those products. Additionally, entering into this agreement prohibited the AMA from endorsing any other company that competed with Sunbeams “health at home” product line. If the AMA conducted little to no research on Sunbeam’s products, how could they know that Sunbeam had the best brand? Now, one would assume that they are stuck and unable to venture out to a brand that might be more beneficial to the customer. undefinedNanda, A (2002). The american medical association-sunbeam deal (a): serpent on the staff meet chainsaw a1. Harvard Business Review. 1-16Discussion Question # 2: Should they dismantle this deal?EXAMPLE FROM ANOTHER STUDENT BELOW TO THE QUESTION ABOVEShould the AMA dismantle this deal? Yes. Will they? I do not think so. The AMA was established as national medical association with the goal of acting as a “unified voice of physicians working together to improve healthcare across the country”. If this is the goal, why the decline in membership and income? What happened that led the AMA to enter a deal motivated by money more than the health and wellbeing of the patient? Sunbeam royalty payments were supposed to benefit the public and patients by funding health education and research programs covering smoking, family violence, women’s health and other health topics. However, public opinion of the AMA was already damaged because the messaging suggested that the association was more interested in physician income rather than patient health. It is disheartening to know that the AMA and other associations have entered large dollar and big money deals endorsements with companies without independently testing products. The FDA might have one standard, but does that standard meet the expectations of your association? On the other hand, it is encouraging to know that not all associations are motivated by monetary benefits of marketing deals. I think the AMA could follow the lead of those associations that assure that products who bear their name are tested and evaluated before giving a seal of approval. If they are truly interested in improving public health, their actions need to be inline with this objective.