Get help with any kind of assignment - from a high school essay to a PhD dissertation
Participating in the scenario about drug testing at the workplace provided some critical lessons to take into account in a dialogue. Those lessons have influenced how I approach a discussion and changed the how I look at conflict at work. It is necessary to realize that, though a negotiation frame is crucial, the structure of a framework can be flexible. In the practice, a very clear frame was constructed prior to the discussion. Terry, the truck driver, had a positive drug test. He then entered into a meeting with his superior and a counselor where they would talk about his future in the firm. The principle was quite clear: drivers have to be tested for drugs. Initially, I saw the rule just like policy. There was little room for negotiation due to a ridged rule. This may be a result of bias growing up in a culture of zero-tolerance with drugs at the school/workplace. As stated by the instance, if a driver were caught with drugs in the machine there were just two choices: release or enter a treatment centre. On the other hand, the framework of this discussion has been setup to address the problem that the rule was trying to address: disability on the street. The rule took random drug testing. So as to abide by the principle, the company establish a policy that dictated a specific limit on the presence of drugs. What I found in estimating the situation was that the policy that implements the process for complying with a rule can be much more flexible. Terry did originally have two choices, but a flexible frame allowed new facts to come to light, which generated the need to consider other actions that might be more appropriate. In the case of Terry, while he didnвЂ™t partake in drugs, he had been in a environment that induced him to check posit...