According to Wani (2018), scholars and researchers have described learned optimism as shifting focus from negative thoughts to positive ones. This ability has been cultivated by individuals through practice, and it has been described by scholars as an intrinsic aspect of human behavior which can be learned by anyone willing enough. Optimism has been proven through research to be a stress coping tool (Wani, 2018). The approach to dealing with issues is proactive, and optimistic persons have highly developed self-esteem. Optimism views issues in terms of permanence or temporary according to the extent of negativity or the situation's positivity (Wani, 2018). For instance, when an optimistic patient who has cancer experiences a relapse in chemotherapy, the patient can decide to view the relapse as a temporary setback with no permanent future implications.
Learned optimism has been discovered to give the persons a locus of control in stress management. Optimistic people have been observed by researchers to explore efficient problem-solving methods. Instead of giving in to stress and depression, an optimistic person handles the problem by ascertaining that if he believes the problem to be manageable, then the solution is within reach. Optimism deals with the stress factors through adaptive behavior and cognitive responses (Wani, 2018). An employee stressed by excess work could choose to resign or miss work. Using optimism, the employee weighs the benefits of completing the work early, such as getting bonuses and overtime pay. By choosing to ignore the negative thoughts such as frustration, the employee can circumvent the work stressors.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Optimistic people appraise each stress factor independently. The adversity (stressor) is evaluated using positive belief, and the consequence is disputation, which is coming up with solutions to problems, and the person is energized (Wani, 2018). The stressor is eliminated, and the individual is left feeling better. Learned optimism has helped stressed individuals reduce the number of suicides associated with depression. The principle works to encourage a depressed person to the thinking that the depressor is only temporary which gives him hope of better days ahead.
Managerial Factors for Decision Making
Heuristics are simple rules that people use to make decisions every day. The rules are based on a judgment about what to do next and why one alternative is better. The framing effect can only be used to explain why a manger chose to make a certain decision (Osmani, 2017). Many forces trigger the decision-making process. The framing of a decision is based on the external factors readily available for the manger to exploit. (Osmani, 2017). The availability heuristic is the framing of a manager's decision based on the availability of easy options or push factors.
For instance, a manager may choose not to attend an important business summit in Doha, Qatar. This decision may be triggered by reports of a terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia. The decision by the manager to miss a vital summit is greatly flawed. The summit could have been very secure, but a heuristic availability escalates the manager's decision on a down-scale. If a manager decides to use a representative heuristic to make decisions, the framing effect will be negative decision making (Osmani, 2017). For instance, if a sales manager determines that young people are generally consuming alcohol, he might recommend opening an outlet in another location. The manager used stereotyping to make this decision. The next outlet may fail because, in that region, people are opposed to alcohol.
Anchoring and adjustment heuristics give the manger a false figure. An anchor may be the limiting factor for growth in a company or organization. An anchor limits the expansion as the uncertainty of the unknown scare risk-averse managers (Osmani, 2017). Risk-averse managers will not venture beyond the anchor point. Decision made from this perspective causes the manager to view investments from the direction of loss instead of future profitability. Also, the management is tied to looking backward, and the manager cannot make investments because of aversion to risk.
Effective Means of Conflict Resolution
There are various methods of handling conflicts. The following methods are considered effective if used in the best scenarios. Due to the modes' competitive nature, it is advisable to think carefully before implementing any of these modes of resolution.
Collaborative Mode
This mode of conflict resolution encompasses assertiveness and cooperativeness (Rao, 2017). The individuals in the conflict both have a voice of their own and well aware of their needs. Both sides need something similar and resolve to work with each other, using the available resources for the firm's good.
Competing mode
In this type of conflict-handling mode, one party is willing to win at all costs. The competing factions are not interest in ensuring the company meets its bottom-line targets. The competitor is unwilling to cooperate, and the only way to solve the issue is by letting the competitor win (Rao, 2017). This method is highly unsuitable for organizations that are keen on team-building efforts.
Avoiding
The avoiding party is unassertive and uncooperative. The person does not pick sides and, instead, watches from a distance to see how it works (Rao, 2017). Such a person is not authoritarian, and the method is ill-advised for managerial staff.
Accommodating
This type is for unassertive people with high compliance. One party is willing to walk away from the conflict so that the other wins (Rao, 2017). This self-sacrifice could be attributed to an unwillingness to be drawn into arguments and confrontations.
Compromising
Both parties in such a conflict are highly assertive and cooperative. The individuals in such a situation are only willing to meet each other on the middle ground (Rao, 2017). Both parties are comfortable giving a part of their bargain if the other does the same.
Models for Handling Negotiations Amicably
Integrative/Win-Win Approach
This method is also referred to as collaboration. In win-win approach, the negotiation is done in a way that everyone wins (Furlong, 2020). Compromises and liberties are traded to ensure that every party is contented with the results. This method is highly appropriate if neither of the conflicting parties is willing to take a step back. In such a case, the prolonged conflict hurts the people involved. For instance, it is suitable for calming warring factions to bring peace.
Win- Lose Approach
In this case, only one person can win (Furlong, 2020). The approach dictates that it is impossible to please everyone at a go. Therefore, one party has to be content with losing at that moment. In many cases, resources dictate who needs the assistance urgently and who can wait. For instance, if a hospital has reported more cancer cases, it might require an extended cancer wing. The nursing section also needs more nurses to handle emergencies. The management will allocate funding to the more urgent need of a cancer facility. From the case scenario, opposing interests means that one has special needs, and only the urgent one can be attended (Furlong, 2020). This method only solves the current problem, not future ones arising from the discriminative decision. Thus, it is likely that the problem resolved could re-emerge at a later time as a permanent solution was not found the first time.
Lose-Lose model
In this model, all parties are losers. The reason is that neither is willing to compromise. The different factions blatantly ignore each other's needs and indicate that they have no intention of conceding (Furlong, 2020). This method is suitable where one party has the right to claim the item of conflict; in such a case conceding means lost opportunities (Furlong, 2020). For instance, when competing for a tender with a rival company, there might arise conflicts. These heated arguments are meant to intimidate the weak. At such a point, maintaining your ground without wavering is recommended.
References
Furlong, G. T. (2020). The conflict resolution toolbox: Models and maps for analyzing, diagnosing, and resolving conflict . John Wiley & Sons.
Osmani, J. (2017). Heuristics and Cognitive Biases: Can the Group Decision-Making Avoid Them? Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies , 5 (3 S1), 225.
Rao, M. S. (2017). Tools and techniques to resolve organizational conflicts amicably. Industrial and Commercial Training .
Wani, N. A. (2018). Depression, optimism-pessimism attitude, and psychological well-being in adolescent boys and girls. Indian Journal of Health & Wellbeing , 9 (5).
