Not exact matches
As long as that
conflict can be drawn as one that's really just about world views, basically about ideologies and
opinions,
then when you say that one of those seems to be oppressing the other, it sounds inherently unfair; but if you ever start to actually engage with the merit of the ideas,
then it all falls apart.
Carole talked about how there is
conflicting opinions among blog posts, forums, etc... she
then brings us a solid definition:
In a data - deprived world, the manager wanders around the dugout gathering
opinions — mostly
conflicting — and
then just makes a decision based on a gut feeling.
You cant present a negative
opinion on forums because you will be trolled by whalea and
then moderated for inciting
conflict.
When patients make claims of negligence the process of discovering whether negligence occurred requires investigating medical records, interviewing the involved parties (through sworn depositions), finding experts, sorting out
conflicts between the
opinions of experts, reinvestigating the records and testimony as new insights are uncovered and
then reaching some kind of consensus, if possible, about what actually occurred and whether those facts meet the definition of legal negligence.
When we do it just to avoid
conflict, like it would be better to apologize in advance even when you are not to blame for anything, or when it shows that we put too much value on other people's
opinions,
then it can affect not only our careers but also our self - esteem.
However, if there is a difference in
opinion,
then the time spent on this issue, and subsequently including this information in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) can reduce
conflict and unnecessary future litigation.