This document summarizes a conflict that arose within the Latino Student Alliance executive board at a university. The conflict began at a meeting to discuss publicity for an upcoming event, where the attitude of the president and vice president toward the publicity chair escalated tensions. After an angry meeting, the executive board became divided with no resolution. Reflections from board members showed differing perspectives on what went wrong and how communication and additional meetings could have achieved resolution. The document concludes by noting the ongoing division within the organization.
2. Background
~ Elected as Social Chair for the Latino Student Alliance (LSA) at
James Madison University (JMU)
~ Latinos are the smallest minority group on campus -->
motivation to get our voices heard
~ Celebración Latina
3. Source of the conflict
~ Presentation for SGA on money for Celebración Latina
~ Attitude and lack of knowledge on our organization
~ Publicity Chair's (PC) letter to editor of school newspaper
4. The conflict
~ Emergency executive meeting is called to discuss the letter
~ President and Vice President (VP) expressed their anger
toward the possible publication of letter
~ PC attempts to express where she is coming from but is
constantly interrupted by VP --> ESCALATION
5. The aftermath
~ Everyone is in foul mood after the meeting and tensions
remain
~ No other meeting announced
~ Exec board becomes divided
~ NO RESOLUTION!
6. What I wish I had done
~ Conflict Style Inventory results
~ Collaboration between other members to resolve the matter
~ Realization of common goal, e.g. the Robbers Cave
experiment
~ Another meeting
7. Other members' perspectives on conflict
(based on their responses)
~ Secretary: VP was in the wrong and she should've been aware
that she was
~ President: Spoke firmly but politely to PC but acknowledgment
that conflict got out of control
~ Treasurer: Both PC and VP were in the wrong, but VP's
approach was "unprofessional"
~ PC: Felt beneath SGA and President and VP, and felt attacked
*Note: The VP did not wish to partake in survey.
8. Other members' perspectives on how
conflict could've been resolved
~ Secretary: Another meeting should have been called -->
opinions of other members shared
~ President: Same as Secretary
~ Treasurer: Same as Secretary and President
~ PC: Apology from SGA, President and VP
*Note: The VP did not wish to partake in survey.
9. Final reflections
~ Secretary: Division extended to entire organization -->
reflective of exec board and LSA
~ President: Tried to mediate between VP and PC but they both
did not want to meet ---> therefore, not worth "solving"
~ Treasurer: Could have been a lesson learned on how to deal
with differences within an organization
~ PC: Pulled away from group and wishes to return after VP
leaves LSA
~ Me: We could have left that year as not only proud of our work
but as great friends; division continues to exist
