Amazon.com Conflict Dynamic via Serpentine Model
There are two critical moments in the serpentine model. The first occurred during the implementation of the warehouse management system, and the second occurred when Amazon.com warehouse employees decided to resign and become whistleblowers in the media.
The first critical moment was triggered by the implementation of Amazon.com warehouse policy and workload. For Amazon.com to fulfill its customers’ demands, the warehouse policy made all of the Amazon.com warehouse employees work too hard. Amazon.com warehouse employees could not talk during work hours; and they had to finish lunch as quickly as possible. Additionally, Amazon.com warehouse employees had to run from one stack to another stack to deliver Amazon.com items on time to the customers. Amazon.com’s warehouse facilities were inhumane: workers went without air-conditioning during summer and heat during the winter because Amazon.com wanted to save on operational costs to ensure “everyday low prices” for its customers. These conditions made the Amazon.com warehouse employees think that they were being treated like robots, which triggered changes in their attitudes from normal to contradiction level of emotion (Ramsbotham, Woodhouse, and Miall, 2011).
The second critical moment made the emotion even higher to polarization level (Ramsbotham, Woodhouse, and Miall, 2011). The trigger was that the Amazon.com board did not change the Amazon.com warehouse policy until some of the employees left Amazon.com and became whistleblowers. They went to the media and exposed the inhumane conditions of Amazon.com’s warehouses.
Finally, the board responded. Jeff Bezos, Amazon.com’s CEO, issued a statement asserting that conditions in Amazon.com’s warehouses were not as bad as described in the media by the former Amazon.com-warehouse employees. But, the former warehouse employees still tell negative elements about Amazon.com warehouse. Both of Amazon.com board, and Amazon.com warehouse employees have further conflict whether in media, and more.
The first critical moment was triggered by the implementation of Amazon.com warehouse policy and workload. For Amazon.com to fulfill its customers’ demands, the warehouse policy made all of the Amazon.com warehouse employees work too hard. Amazon.com warehouse employees could not talk during work hours; and they had to finish lunch as quickly as possible. Additionally, Amazon.com warehouse employees had to run from one stack to another stack to deliver Amazon.com items on time to the customers. Amazon.com’s warehouse facilities were inhumane: workers went without air-conditioning during summer and heat during the winter because Amazon.com wanted to save on operational costs to ensure “everyday low prices” for its customers. These conditions made the Amazon.com warehouse employees think that they were being treated like robots, which triggered changes in their attitudes from normal to contradiction level of emotion (Ramsbotham, Woodhouse, and Miall, 2011).
The second critical moment made the emotion even higher to polarization level (Ramsbotham, Woodhouse, and Miall, 2011). The trigger was that the Amazon.com board did not change the Amazon.com warehouse policy until some of the employees left Amazon.com and became whistleblowers. They went to the media and exposed the inhumane conditions of Amazon.com’s warehouses.
Finally, the board responded. Jeff Bezos, Amazon.com’s CEO, issued a statement asserting that conditions in Amazon.com’s warehouses were not as bad as described in the media by the former Amazon.com-warehouse employees. But, the former warehouse employees still tell negative elements about Amazon.com warehouse. Both of Amazon.com board, and Amazon.com warehouse employees have further conflict whether in media, and more.
Serpentine Model 2nd Scenario (If Collective Action is being Promoted)
There was a critical moment before the escalation of emotion, when the situation might have evolved differently. The board could have proceeded differently: they could have involved the Amazon.com employees in their decision-making. This would create a new scenario.
Involving Amazon.com’s warehouse employees in the creation of warehouse policy would open the flow of communication so that Amazon.com warehouse employees could understand the board’s viewpoints and vice versa. This collective action could generate the possibility of a win-win situation for both the board and the warehouse employees (Louis, 2009).
Involving Amazon.com warehouse employees would have enhanced and built better teamwork at Amazon.com. There would have been no whistleblowers and no resistance from the employees, which would have built more trust among the employees.
Involving Amazon.com’s warehouse employees in the creation of warehouse policy would open the flow of communication so that Amazon.com warehouse employees could understand the board’s viewpoints and vice versa. This collective action could generate the possibility of a win-win situation for both the board and the warehouse employees (Louis, 2009).
Involving Amazon.com warehouse employees would have enhanced and built better teamwork at Amazon.com. There would have been no whistleblowers and no resistance from the employees, which would have built more trust among the employees.
References
Louis, W. (2009). Collective action and then what? Journal of Social Issues, 65. 727-748.
Ramsbotham, O., Woodhouse, T., Miall, H. (2011). Contemporary conflict resolution: The prevention, management and transformation of deadly conflicts.
Ramsbotham, O., Woodhouse, T., Miall, H. (2011). Contemporary conflict resolution: The prevention, management and transformation of deadly conflicts.