The interpersonal conflict situation that I had experienced happened about a year ago, when I was still working part time before school term starts. I was working with a few other part-timers on a small project which we are supposed to relocate the company files and hence we need to re- catalogue the files library. So we further split into smaller groups so as to split the work into shifts, team A and team B.
I was in team A, and the conflict occurred when my team handed over the work to team B. Apparently there was a guy in team B, Peter who got very frustrated when he saw the catalogue we handed over to them. He could not understand the way we written in the catalogue so he began to start using vulgarities on my other colleague whom was in my team, without seeking clarifications first.
I began to get irritated as well, because I felt that Peter was criticizing our work without even seeking clarifications first. So, I approached Peter to explain but things got worse as he started raising his voice at me, and I did the same thing in return. We started to quarrel until one of the permanent staff there stopped us. Since then, Peter and I had not been on good terms, although we seemed to be friendly to each other, I feel that things have changed after the quarrel that we had and there was indeed a crack in our friendship. We basically ignored each other and only talked when necessary.
I believed that the main problem is the failure to understand why Peter behaves in such a way since he usually does not behave as such. Peter could have some problems that I do not know which explains his bad tempered behaviour on that day. I should have walked away first when Peter started to raise his voice at me and not rebutting him which results in a quarrel. I should have talked to him after he cool down. For Peter, he should seek clarifications in a neutral but not an intimidating tone with us to avoid us from misunderstanding him. He should realise that not everyone will know what problems he have, so it is hard for us to interpret his actions.
1. What should Peter have done if he really has personal problems which cause his erratic behaviour on that day?
2. What could have other members on Team A and Team B have done?
3. What are the approaches that I could have taken after Peter started raises his voice at me?
4. What should I or he have done to salvage this friendship after the quarrel?
6 comments:
Hi Jason,
I feel that Peter should try to separate his personal problems with his work. I know it is easier to say than to do it but this conflict may have been avoided if he is tried to separate his personal problems with his feelings. It may help if he go to a quiet place and calm his nerves before he started work.
The person who handed the catalogue to Peter could have tried to clarify the things that he thought Peter is unsure of. Alternatively, he could ask Peter what he does not understand in the catalogue. In addition, it would be better if both teams had discussed the format of the catalogue before they separate their work. The conflict arose because Team B does not really understand how Team A structured the catalogue and Peter and you failed to handle the situation well.
You could have tried to calm Peter down when Peter started to raise his voice at you. If it failed, then it would be better if you just walk away from him for a while.
Lastly, hope that you have learned how to handle your emotions better to avoid future conflicts from this incident.
Li Hua
Hi Jason,
I feel that Peter could have controlled his emotions better on that day. It is very unprofessional and unethical of him to incorporate his personal issues and take it out on others during work. He could have took the day off to settle his personal problems before coming back to work if it is really so serious.
It seems to me that the members from both Team A and Team B basically just stood aside and did nothing to savage the situation when you were quarrelling with Peter. I feel that they could have tried to separate the both of you when things started to get out of hand. It definitely did not reflect well to the permanent staff that came over to intervene.
Next, you could have asked him to cool down instead of competing with him to see whose voice was louder. Subsequently, you can ask him to proceed to a more deserted place to clarify on things. In this case, things could be settled peacefully unknowingly to the permanent staffs over there which might in turn tell your boss.
Lastly, I know that it is defying human’s temperament to apologize first after a quarrel or argument. However, I feel that you should have taken the initiative to strike up a casual conversation with him after work and then clear things up with him. Even though he might not forgive you, you have already done your part as a true friend by making the effort to apologize. I hope that you found my comments useful and wish you all the best in getting Peter back as a friend.
Regards,
Hao Tan
Hi Jason,
Communication, and hence arguments, are part and parcel of life itself. Human interaction has always been a gauge of tolerance between 2 persons, whether person A are able to tolerate what he dislike in person B and vice versa. Quite obviously, Peter here in this scenario has an extremely low tolerance levels.
I think it is quite a common Singaporean behavior to stand aside of a commotion and give their comments after it ended. I guess members in both team A and B had alot to say about this incident. In my opinion, we can always come up with a long list of what-to-do-during-a-commotion guide book, but in Singapore it is not going to work because it is part of our society's culture.
There's a rule of thumb that everyone seems to forgot, and that is "Do not fight fire with fire.", but everyday we see 2 parties arguing and thrashing daylights out of each other. It is tempting but taking an aggressive stance in your case would only make matters worse, which it did in the end. So perhaps you could have had a cooler head, but easier said than done rite?
Lastly, although it's heartening to see that you still cherish this friendship it takes two hands to clap nevertheless. Before you engage in any form of salvation, I think it is worth considering on your part how much Peter cherish this friendship too. Do not embark in an impossible mission; unfortunately we are not Tom Cruises.
Hope it helps!
Brandon
Hi Jason,
With everyone in the world with different backgrounds and environment, naturally there will be differences in ideas, even in the same subject.
Especially when work is passed down by one team to the other in a production line manner, it is highly likely the next person will find the above work not done sufficiently, or that it can be done in another way.
However, Peter should be more professional in controlling his emotions. Yes he may be upset, but work and personal life are no doubt separate.
And one way you could do to avoid a confrontation situation is to walk away from the person, try and wait for the situation to cool down, then go back and explain again.
When a person is agitated normally the emotions take over, and logic sits at the side. So even if you made an extremely convincing argument, with Peter in the heat of the moment, nothing would have been absorbed by him.
If you really treasure the friendship you had, dont let your pride obstruct you. Start off apologizing, and if Peter treasures your friendship, it will not take long for the hatchet to be buried.
Hope my suggestion has helped you. (:
Cheers,
Cher Lia
Hi Jason,
To answer your first question on what Peter should have done, I feel that he should not let his personal feelings interfere with his work. If he is facing some problems outside that are interfering with his work, he should have settled it before coming to work, so that he can concentrate on his job.
As for the other members, they could have tried to stop the conflict and not just watch from the side. Even if they are unable to stop it, they could at least separate you and Peter to prevent the conflict from blowing up.
I feel that you should not have let your emotions taken over you. When Peter started raising his voice, you should have remained calm, instead of starting a quarrel. By staying calm, I believe you would realize that Peter is different from his usual self and you would definitely react in a different manner. The conflict would not have gotten out of hand then.
To salvage the friendship, I feel that an apology is required. It does not matter who apologizes first, as both are at fault. After apologizing, you could share with the other party on the reasons that causes you to be irritated. I am sure that the other party would share their own reasons after hearing yours. After the misunderstandings is resolved, I am sure that both of you would become closer friends.
Hope that my suggestions are of help to you.
Leonard (C06)
Hi Jason,
I agree that Peter was definitely having personal issues before coming to work and would have taken any opportunity to vent his frustrations. It was just bad luck that he used that particular moment to. If this was a one-off event and Peter is generally good natured, he could be forgiven. However, if he is prone to such outbursts, than it would have been better to ignore him instead and not give him the attention he wants.
One possible solution is to calm walk away from him till he calms down enough so that things can be explained to him and he will react rationally. If this does not work, remind him it is a public place and he should show some dignity.
As for how the teams should have reacted. They should realize that Peter was behaving irrationally and not indulge his childishness. Team A has every right to ignore him while Team B should attempt to calm him down.
As for salvaging the friendship, either party should take the time to apologize for their actions, even though it happened some time ago. However, if the person being apologized to show no remorse over his own actions, it shows that he does not think what he did was wrong. I would not want to salvage such a friendship and perhaps the argument would be for the best.
Regards,
Kimberly
Post a Comment