Conflict critique

This is the very beginning of a conflict critique paper I’m writing for my CONFLICT MGMT course. Please note that it is first rough draft. It’s also incomplete as it only contains my view and not the supposed view of the board.

You’ll see it broken into seven sections:

• Conflict history
• Expression of conflict
• Roles of interdependence
• Perceived incompatible goals
• Perceived scarce resources
• Perceived interference of achieving goals

Last, I do not write this to open “old wounds.” I write it as an academic exercise of something substantial that happened in my life. Please take it as such.

***

This conflict took place during the months of February and March 2009. The Arbiter, the student newspaper at Boise State University, is governed by a body called the Publication Board. This body hires the yearly Editor-in-Chief and Business Manger. Two major competitors vied for the EIC position during the year in question. The first was the “incumbent” and the other the then-current Managing Editor of The Arbiter. I sat on the board as a student liaison from the newspaper. I had a voice but no formal vote.

During the job-selection process I attempted to express an on-going struggle I – and many other student employees – had with the Editor-in-Chief (whom I referred to as the “incumbent” above). I first expressed this struggle to the then-adviser Mary Dawson. This expression took place in her office, in a verbal format. I explained to her that I felt manipulated and ill-treated by the head editor.

Additionally, I expressed my frustration covertly to the EIC through indirect actions. For example, I worked hard to build a content calendar which included all of my planned content a few weeks out. This, I hoped, would allow me to assert control over my section by getting the EIC’s “stamp of approval” several weeks out, thereby cutting back on last-minute micromanaging.

Lastly, I expressed this conflict to the Publication Board in a short monologue in which I explained out I feel. (We are discussing this one moment – the addressing of the board – but chose to included the other aspects of the conflict as necessary background information for the reader).

My place on the board was integral since the board wishes to hire an editor that works well with the staff. This, too, was my wish. In this circle of independence we (myself and the board members) were equal.

While it appears that all the goals between myself and the board were the same, they weren’t. The goal of hiring an editor that works well with the staff is only one goal. In addition to hiring the two top student employees the Publication Board also approves and keeps tabs on The Arbiter’s budget. The Board was especially cautious of the budget in a year of financial hardship (as was Fiscal year 2008-09). Therefore, our incompatible goals can really be broken into two broad categories. The board wishes to fulfill a content goal. They want, above all else, an editor that can manage the budget effectively. This contrast with my goal, above all else, to hire an editor that could cultivate the employees rather than micromanage them.

Further compounding this conflict is the scarce resource time. The board traditionally tries to get through the selection process in a timely manner. For example, each competitor only received a 30-minute interview (the two competitors in question received a second 30-minute interview, but this decision was completely ad hoc). Because of this time constraint, the conflict carried over into what goals should be discussed during the deliberation period.

Goals then began to interfere with one another because of the time constraint. It seemed impossible to talk both about the content goal (hiring an editor that can produce) and the relational goal (hiring an editor that could teach employees rather than micromanage them). While both these goals might have been meet, everybody seemed to unconsciously acknowledge that only one type of goal could be talked about in a timely manner.

Sunday morning critique

Today I’m offering a critique of a sermon from a church I visited. If you were at the church or know the presenting pastor, please keep both anonymous. I hope that my critique moves beyond the criticisms and cultivates a new conversation.

The sermon suggested that God wants to reconcile us to him so that we can have shalom (peace). The pastor defined this peace as, “Harmony with God.” Being in a harmonious relationship with him (and, thenceforth, without ourselves, the people around us and the rest of creation). Nothing disagreeable here. But I felt like the pastor implied that, if we let God take action, our relationship would suddenly become harmonious.

This is probably not what the pastor was implying. Rather, I attribute it to the way our culture thinks. Our culture (and by this I mean the social norms I – maybe not you, but definitely me – the people I grew up with taught me) has taught us that conflict is bad. Conflict can turn out bad, but it doesn’t have to.

The Chinese symbol for conflict is made up of two other symbols – the ones for danger and opportunity.

When a conflict goes negatively it can ruin relationships. It’s dangerous. But when a conflict goes positively, that is each person seeks to understand the other and come to a decision together, the relationship grows stronger. It creates opportunity.

This is what I felt the pastor left out of the sermon. If you want to grow closer to God, or anyone else, there’s going to be conflict. And that conflict, handled correctly, will leave a more harmonious relationship in its wake. Other people have expressed this in different ways. “One has to go down before they can go up.” “You have to go through the valley before you can ascend the mountain.” “Once he hits rock bottom, things will get better.”

I definitely think God is calling us to a more harmonious relationship, but I think the most authentic way to get there lies between danger and opportunity.

What I mean by “diet”

Earlier this week I said I’d explain what I meant when I said Gev and I went on a diet. So here goes.

Mostly our diet means eating healthier rather than eating less. For example, survey one hundred people. How many times a week do they go to the grocery store (baring if they work there)? A majority of them will tell you four or more times a week. This is because they impulse buy – that is, they go to the store when they “need” something. Generally “need” means “craving.”

Gev and I, instead, are eating intentionally. Gev puts together a weekly eating chart. This includes every meal. Some of these meals are veggies and chicken. Other meals include some fatty foods (gotta keep it all balanced, ya know).

Then, we go to the store and buy the stuff. And it’s on a list. This keeps us from impulse buying, like the ice cream I’m craving right now that Gev won’t let me go to the store and buy (damn it!).

So, to finish this post off, a list of my staples – the things I now eat the most – and the things I gave up.

• Bananas, two or three a day
• Carrots, usually two a day
• Tuna fish sandwiches, usually two cans a week but sometimes three
• Eggs, four to five days a week
• Apple juice, nearly every day
• Tea, nearly every day

The things I gave up – mostly.

• Coffee (now almost a week without)
• Pizza (I used to eat this a lot – I’ve narrowed down)
• Processed sugar (I use honey)
• Hot dogs (on buns with ketchup…I miss them)
• Soda (I’m thinking of giving this up completely)
• Convenience foods

That’s my list. Wanna share yours?

Grace and peace.

Newspaper: Unbiased v. Argumentative

Yesterday I openly acknowledged that I no longer believe journalism (or Mass Media) should be unbiased.

First off, there’s a problem with the word “unbiased.” What does it mean? It could mean lack of opinion statements. In that case, lack of these statement by whom? The journalist? Or the people the journalist interviews, also? Second to that, “unbiased” could refer to choice of facts. It could mean that all facts are presented. But how do you know if you have all the facts? And what if (as the professor brought up) 95 percent of people believe one way and 5 percent believe another way? Do you give them equal weight? Or weight dependent on beliefs? Which is unbiased?

But ya know, I don’t want my paper to give me “just the facts, ma’am.” Three years of University life have taught me that facts can be interpreted. And that’s what I want.

I want experts (and the occasional blubbering idiot – for a laugh) to tell me what they think the facts mean. I want to hear their arguments. Then I want to take the education I’ve received and decide who I agree with. Because for me it has nothing to do with being “unbiased;” It has to do with hearing different perspectives and decided where I stand and why.

And finally, I (maybe more than occasionally) want to be entertained. It’s why I, and so many people my age, watch The Colbert Report.

LOL. I think that’s enough of that for now.

Grace and peace.

Simple questions – simple answers?

My math professor gave these word puzzles out on the first day of class. Enjoy!

1. How far can a bear walk into the woods?
2. What is the value of coin dated 24 B.C.?
3. How many grooves does a 45rpm phonograph record have?
4. A camper leaves her camp, hikes 1 mile south, then 1 mile east where she sees a bear. Then she hikes 1 mile north to arrive at her camp. What color is the bear?
5. If a rooster lays an egg on the peak of a roof, will the egg roll to the left side or to the right side?
6. If a south bound electric train is traveling at a rate of 66 miles per hour and the wind is bowing to the north at 35 miles per hour, which way will the smoke blow?
7. On which side of a chicken are the most feathers?
8. Is it legal for a man in California to marry his widow’s sister?
9. Take the number 30, divide by 1/2, then add 10. What number do you get?
10. How many 2 cent stamps are in a dozen?

Class rundown

I’m working from a school computer at the moment, just printing out some articles for my CONFLICT MANAGEMENT course. One of them is 42 pages long. I’m not so happy about that.

Yesterday was my first day, and they day I have most of my classes (most of them Communication courses). Today I have LATIN – although the course normally only meets Monday and Friday – and Math 124. After that I’ll go to work and then (hopefully) pick up our fixed car. The last time I did that the car died four miles from the lot.

My favorite class so far is CONFLICT MANAGEMENT, instructed by Heidi Reeder. She’s very enthusiastic, not afraid to look a little weird to get the point across. Also (according to her short autobiography), she likes to travel with her husband, play tennis and watch movies. I figure if there’s another intellectual out there who enjoys watching movies they can’t be all that bad.

My other classes include:

• Organizational Communication (second fav)
• Modern Political Philosophy (not bad – I like Machiavelli)
• Mass Communication and Democracy (at the moment, my least fav – but we’ll see)

‘Til next time,

Grace and peace.

Eating healthy

Gev and I just recently decided to eat healthy. Every week she’s putting together an eating plan. It has breakfasts, lunches and dinners on it (which is nice – when I’m told what I need to eat I’ll usually do it).

So the other night we went on our first officially shopping event. Normally we just go to the store when we need to – about four or five times a week. But now we’re dedicated to only going once a week, and the occasional run for products we forgot (which is tonight, since I forgot to put things on the list for the other night).

Additionally, I’ve *mostly* given up coffee. This doesn’t mean I won’t ever drink it, just that I don’t drink it every day. Or even every other day. In fact, I don’t think I’ve had it for almost a week. Instead I drink juice, water, tea and a work-out drink.

All for now. Later I’ll explain by what I mean by “healthy” so you can understand our new “diet.”