Chapter 7 2 When mediating a conflict, when is meeting separately with the parties

39)

When mediating a conflict, when is meeting separately with the parties useful?

39)

A)

When the parties have a history of recurring disputes

B)

When parties have equal status

C)

When the parties agree on the root causes of the problem

D)

When parties are nearing resolution

40)

When exploring options for resolution, what should the mediator do?

40)

A)

Focus on one party’s interests

B)

Focus on both interests and positions

C)

Focus on positions, not interests

D)

Focus on interests, not positions

41)

Research study results suggest (1) Asian cultures prefer accommodating and forcing more than

Western cultures, (2) Americans prefer avoiding more than Asian cultures, and (3) compromise is

the most preferred style across cultures. Which statements are correct?

41)

A)

All three statements are correct.

B)

Only statements 1 and 3 are correct.

C)

Only statements 2 and 3 are correct.

D)

Only statements 1 and 2 are correct.

E)

Only statement 3 is correct.

42)

How can disagreements between line and staff generally be resolved?

42)

A)

Redesigning their jobs

B)

The mediation of a common superior

C)

Intervention of an objective third party

D)

Repairing the breakdown in the communication/information system

43)

Which of the following is not one of the “rules of engagement” for effective conflict management?

43)

A)

Share commonly agreed–upon goals.

B)

Maintain a balanced power structure.

C)

Interject humor into the decision process.

D)

Work with less information.

E)

Focus on the facts.

D

B

44)

In the problem identification stage, as a mediator you should (1) acknowledge that a conflict exists,

(2) maintain a neutral posture, and (3) explore options by focusing on the positions behind stated

interests. Which statements are correct?

44)

A)

All the statements are correct.

B)

Only statements 2 and 3 are correct.

C)

Only statements 1 and 2 are correct.

D)

Only statements 1 and 3 are correct.

E)

None of the statements are correct.

45)

A person is probably an ineffective conflict manager if she/he (1) chooses an approach to resolve

conflict based on an assessment of the situation, (2) relies on one or two strategies regardless of

changing circumstances, and (3) implements the collaborative approach too often. Which

statements are true of ineffective conflict management?

45)

A)

All three statements are correct.

B)

Only statement 2 is correct.

C)

Only statements 1 and 3 are correct.

D)

Only statements 2 and 3 are correct.

E)

Only statement 3 is correct.

46)

Downsizing encourages which type of interpersonal conflict?

46)

A)

Information deficiency

B)

Personality–defect theory

C)

Personal differences

D)

Role incompatibility

E)

Environmental stress

47)

The four sources of conflict are (1) personality–defect, (2) informational deficiency, (3) role

incompatibility, and (4) environmental stress. Which sources are correct?

47)

A)

All the sources indicated are correct.

B)

All are correct except source 4.

C)

All are correct except source 1.

D)

Only sources 2 and 3 are correct.

48)

A manager remarks, “In the problem–solving climate, it is important for the initiator‘s comment to

be brief and to the point. The longer the opening statement, the longer it will take the two parties to

work through their problem.” What should you do?

48)

A)

You should disagree because clearly it is important to get all your feelings out in the opening

statement so the responder knows where you stand. The longer the problem statement is, the

more complete it is.

B)

You should agree.

C)

You should disagree because the initiator should ask for suggestions of acceptable

alternatives.

49)

Interpersonal problems don’t get resolved, resulting in high levels of frustration. You probably

used which approach to resolve conflicts?

49)

A)

Collaborating

B)

Forcing

C)

Compromising

D)

Avoiding

E)

Accommodating

50)

Which approach is the only conflict management strategy that resolves the problem, the only one

that is viewed as win–win?

50)

A)

Collaborating

B)

Avoiding

C)

Accommodating

D)

Forcing

E)

Compromising

51)

If subordinates are continually told to “split the difference,” what may they conclude?

51)

A)

That their manager is avoiding the issue

B)

That their manager encourages game playing and that what they should really do is ask for

twice as much as they need

C)

That their manager is more interested in solving problems than in resolving disputes

D)

That their manager discourages game playing and that what they should really do is ask for

only what they need

52)

Once you, the responder, understand the initiator’s complaint, what should you do?

52)

A)

Ask for recommended solutions from the initiator.

B)

Ask for time to consider your options.

C)

Seek a mediator to work through the solutions.

D)

Recommend some solutions.

A

53)

Time is a moderately important factor, you have no power, and the ongoing relationship is critical

to you. Which conflict response will you most likely use?

53)

A)

Compromising

B)

Forcing

C)

Accommodating

D)

Avoiding

C

B

54)

You manage individuals from many different countries and cultures. A manager remarks, “Well,

they may be from different cultures but within the organization there is only one culture you need

to worry about, the organization’s culture.” How should you respond to this statement?

54)

A)

You should disagree with the statement made by the manager.

B)

You should agree with the statement made by the manager.

C)

There is not enough information to decide.

55)

Your boss is very upset with you. She screams at you and calls you all kinds of names. What should

you do?

55)

A)

Calmly inform her that you don’t have to listen to this and leave.

B)

Discuss this problem with your boss’s manager.

C)

Take it, it’s not like you haven’t heard the names before.

D)

Tell her you do not have to tolerate personal attacks and when she calms down, you’ll be

happy to talk about the problem without the emotions.

56)

According to the results of one research study, what method of resolution was utilized most often

by managers?

56)

A)

Avoidance

B)

Compromise

C)

Forcing

D)

Collaboration

E)

Accommodating

57)

The issue involved is very important to you, but you are not too concerned about the relationship

you have with the other individual. Which conflict response would you most likely use?

57)

A)

Forcing

B)

Compromising

C)

Avoiding

D)

Accommodating

E)

Collaborating

TRUE/FALSE. Write ‘T’ if the statement is true and ‘F’ if the statement is false.

58)

You feel vindicated, but others may feel defeated and possibly humiliated. The approach you

probably used to resolve the conflict is forcing.

58)

59)

In selecting a format to mediate a conflict, the mediator must assess the position of the disputants

(are they both aware a problem exists?), the nature of the relationship, and the nature of the

problem.

59)

60)

Research indicates that people–focused conflicts threaten relationships, whereas issue–based

conflicts enhance relationships.

60)

61)

If time is a moderately significant factor, the relationship with the other individual(s) is not critical,

and the issue is extremely important to you, you are most likely to use the accommodating

approach to handling conflict.

61)

62)

Although distributive negotiators assume an adversarial, competitive posture, the distributive

perspective focuses on finding the best solution for both parties, rather than picking between the

parties’ preferred solutions.

62)

63)

With regard to conflict, the task of an effective manager is to encourage conflict as a means to get a

high level of performance from subordinates.

63)

64)

Recent research indicates that gender differences are only moderately correlated with conflict

management style preferences.

64)

65)

Issue–focused conflicts are similar to rational negotiations, which can be viewed as an interpersonal

decision–making process by which two or more people agree how to allocate scarce resources.

65)

66)

A recent trend is an increasing acceptance of the intellectual value of conflict accompanied by a

tendency to embrace it as a means to achieve organizational goals.

66)

67)

Compromise is the most appropriate approach when the issues are complex and moderately

important, there are no simple solutions, and both parties have a strong interest in different aspects

of the problem.

67)

68)

Maria is from Mexico and Elaine is from Canada; they are customer service representatives. At least

twice weekly, they get into an argument over how to handle a customer complaint. The most likely

source of their conflict is personal differences.

68)

69)

As the new manager of purchasing, your goal is to keep the peace, instill harmony, and make sure

no one creates any waves. The type of conflict response you are most likely to use is avoidance.

69)

70)

Reorganization of the manufacturing operations in a pet food company resulted in the addition of a

new third shift and a reallocation of responsibilities among the managers. Conflict ensued based on

the uncertainty of who was going to have to work the third shift. The most likely source of the

conflict in this situation is role incompatibility.

70)

71)

Your peer in the shipping department has asked you to work this weekend in her place. You tell

her you will have to think about it. The type of conflict response you have used is avoidance.

71)

72)

Diversity in the workplace could result in interpersonal conflict based on role incompatibility.

72)

73)

The relevant situational factors to be used in selecting the most appropriate conflict management

approach include the importance of the issue and the relationship, the relative power of the parties,

and time constraints.

73)

74)

The goal of the mediator is to assess who is responsible.

74)

75)

Marla’s co–worker, Peter, has failed to meet a deadline of providing her with information for a

presentation. Marla’s first step in discussing this problem with Peter should be to encourage a

two–way discussion.

75)

76)

When the conflict stems from information deficiency, the conflict is easy to resolve because of the

intervention of a third party.

76)

77)

As the responder, you should not agree with the complaint if you can’t find anything of substance

with which to agree.

77)

78)

You have been told that each department’s budget is to be cut by 6 percent for the next fiscal

quarter. Top management stated this was the fairest approach, given declining sales. Top

management is using a compromising approach to resolve potential conflicts.

78)

79)

In managing conflict, a manager must be able to understand how cultural differences and other

diversity issues may affect the situation.

79)

80)

When the problem is complex, the initiator should initially focus on a simple problem and build up

from there.

80)

ESSAY. Write your answer in the space provided or on a separate sheet of paper.

81)

Describe an example (real or fictional) of accommodating as a conflict management approach. Diagnose

whether the use of accommodating was appropriate to the situation and, if not, what approach would have

been preferable.

82)

Using the framework for the collaborative approach to problem solving, explain the behavioral guidelines when

one acts as an initiator in dyadic confrontation. Also, provide example statements that the initiator can make for

each major guideline.

Educational Pension Investments

Educational Pension Investments (EPI), located in New York, invests pension funds for educational institutions. It employs

approximately 75 people, 25 of whom are responsible for actual investment activities. The company manages about $5 billion of assets

and derived an income of about $10 million.

The firm was incorporated almost 30 years ago by a group of academic professionals who wanted to control the destiny of

their retirement years by pursuing investments that would be consistent and safe. The firm has weathered rapid

technological change and economic volatility. Leadership has consistently resisted opportunities to “make it big” and instead

stayed with less profitable but relatively secure investments.

Dan Richardson has an MBA from Wharton and is one of the founders of EPI. He started out working in the research

department and has worked in every department since then. The other partners, comfortable with Dan’s conservative yet

flexible nature, elected him to the position of CEO 13 years ago. After that, Dan became known as “the great equalizer.” He

works hard to make sure that all the partners are included in decisions. Over the years, he has become the confidant of the

other seniors and the mentor of the next generation. EPI’s employees look to Dan for leadership and direction. Dan’s

management philosophy is built on the concept of loyalty. As he is fond of saying, “My dad was a small town banker. He told

me, ‘Look out for the other guys and they’ll look out for you.’ Sounds corny, I know, but I firmly believe in this philosophy.”

Given Dan’s practice of consistent and safe investing, EPI’s growth has not kept pace with other investment opportunities. As

a result, Dan has reluctantly begun to consider the merits of a more aggressive investment approach. Part of Dan’s

reconsideration is that several of the younger analysts are beginning to refer to EPI as “stodgy.” Some are leaving EPI for

positions in more aggressive firms.

One evening, Dan talked about his concern with his racquetball partner and longtime friend, Mike Roth. Mike also happened

to be an investment broker in another firm. An MBA graduate from the University of Illinois, Mike’s accomplishments in

research had brought him widespread recognition. Everyone respected him for his knowledge, his work ethic, and his

34

uncanny ability to predict trends.

When Mike heard Dan’s concerns about EPI’s image and need for an aggressive approach, he suggested to his friend that

what EPI needed was some fresh blood, someone who could infuse enthusiasm into the organization––someone like him. He

told Dan, “I can help you get things moving. In fact, I’ve been developing some concepts that would be perfect for EPI.”

Dan brought up the idea of hiring Mike at the next staff meeting, but the idea was met with caution and skepticism. “Sure,

he’s had a brilliant career on paper,” said one senior partner. “But he’s never stayed in one place long enough to really

validate his success. Look at his résumé. During the past seven years, he’s been with four different firms, in four different

positions.”

“That’s true,” said Dan, “but his references all check out. In fact, he‘s been described as a rising star, aggressive, productive.

He’s just what we need to help us explore new opportunities.”

Another partner responded, “A friend of mine worked with Mike a while back and said that while he is definitely good, he’s

a real maverick––in terms of both investment philosophy and lifestyle. Is that what we really want at EPI?”

Throughout the discussion, Dan defended Mike’s work record. He repeatedly pointed out Mike’s impressive performance.

He deflected concerns about Mike’s reputation by saying that he was a loyal and trusted friend. Largely on Dan’s

recommendation, the other partners agreed, although somewhat reluctantly, to hire Mike. When Dan offered Mike the job, he

promised Mike the freedom and flexibility to operate a segment of the fund as he desired.

Mike took the job and performed his responsibilities at EPI in a superior manner. Indeed, he was largely responsible for

increasing the managed assets of the company by 150 percent. However, this increase came at a price. From the day Mike

moved in, junior analysts enjoyed working with him very much. They liked his fresh, new approach, and were encouraged

by the spectacular results. This caused jealousy among the other partners, who thought Mike was pushing too hard to change

the tried–and–true traditions of the firm. It was not uncommon for sharp disagreements to erupt in staff meetings, with one

or another partner coming close to storming out of the room. Throughout this time, Dan tried to soothe ruffled feathers and

maintain an atmosphere of trust and loyalty.

Mike seemed oblivious to all the turmoil he was causing. He was optimistic about potential growth opportunities. He

believed that voice–activated technology, 3–D printing, and cloud databases were the “waves of the future.” Because of this

belief, he wanted to direct the focus of his portfolio toward these emerging technologies. “Investments in small firm stocks in

these industries, coupled with an aggressive market timing strategy, should yield a 50 percent increase in performance.” He

rallied support for this idea not only among the younger members of EPI, but also with the pension fund managers who

invested with EPI. Mike championed his position and openly questioned the traditional philosophy. “We should compromise

on conservatism and achieve some real growth while we can,” Mike argued. “If we don’t, we’ll lose the investors’ confidence

and ultimately lose them.“

Most of the senior partners disagreed with Mike, stating that the majority of their investors emphasized security above all

else. They also disagreed with the projected profits, stating that “We could go from 8 to 12 percent return on investment

(ROI); then again, we could drop to 4 percent. A lot depends on whose data you use.” They reminded Mike, “The

fundamental approach of the corporation is to provide safe and moderate–income mutual funds for academic pension funds

to invest in. That’s the philosophy we used to solicit the investments originally, and that’s the approach we are obligated to

maintain.”

Months passed, and dissension among the managers grew. Mike began to criticize his detractors openly as he talked with

younger EPI employees. In addition, he assigned research department employees to focus on high–tech investments,

distracting them from investigating more traditional investments. This disrupted the operations of other EPI managers

because their funds relied on timely input from the researchers and other support staff. Amidst a rapidly spreading

undercurrent of tension, one of the founding partners, Tom Watson, approached Dan one day. Conservative in his ways,

Watson was the partner who walks the office and always has time to stop and chat. He began the conversation.

“Dan, I speak for most of the senior staff when I say that we are very troubled by Mike’s approach. We’ve expressed ourselves

well enough for Mike to understand, but his actions defy everything we’ve said. He’s a catastrophe just waiting to happen.”

“I can understand your concern, Tom,” replied Dan. “I’m troubled, too. We have an opportunity to attract new business with

some of Mike’s new ideas. And the younger staff love working on his projects. But he has stirred up a lot of turmoil.”

Tom agreed. “The real issue is that EPI is no longer presenting a unified image. Mike is willfully defying the stated objectives

of our organization. And some of our oldest clients don’t like that.”

“That’s true, Tom. On the other hand, some of our newer clients are really encouraged by Mike’s approach––and his track

record is extremely impressive.”

“Come on, Dan. You and I both know that many experts feel the market is overheating. Mike’s paper profits could quickly be

incinerated if the budget and trade deficits don’t turn around. We can’t stake the reputation of the firm on a few high–flying

technology stocks. Dan, the other senior partners agree. Mike must either conform to the philosophy and management

35

practices of this organization or else resign.“

Reflecting on the situation, Dan realized he faced the most difficult challenge of his career. He felt a strong personal

investment in helping Mike succeed. Not only had he hired Mike over the objections of several colleagues; he had personally

helped him “learn the ropes” at EPI. Beyond that, Dan was haunted by his promise to Mike that he would have the freedom

and flexibility to perform the requirements of the position as he pleased. However, this flexibility had clearly caused

problems within EPI.

Finally, bowing to the pressure of his peers, Dan called Mike in for a meeting, hoping to find some basis for compromise.

Their conversation proceeded as follows:

DAN: I gather you know the kinds of concerns the senior partners have expressed regarding your approach.

MIKE: I guess you’ve talked with Tom. Well, we did have a small disagreement earlier this week.

DAN: The way Tom tells it, you’re willfully defying corporate objectives and being insubordinate.

MIKE: Well, it’s just like Watson to see progressive change as an attempt to take away his power.

DAN: It’s not quite that simple, Mike. When we founded EPI, we all agreed that a conservative stance was best. And right

now, with the economic indicators looking soft, many experts agree that it may still be the best alternative.

MIKE: Dan, what are you going to rely on––predictions or performance? These concerns are just smokescreens to deflect

attention away from the sub–par records of other portfolio managers. Old views need to be challenged and ultimately

discarded. How else are we going to progress and keep up with our competitors?

DAN: I agree we need to change, Mike––but gradually. You have great ideas and terrific instincts, but you can’t change a

30–year–old firm overnight. You can help me promote change, but you’re pushing so fast, others are digging in their heels.

The rate of change is just as important as the direction.

MIKE: You’re telling me. And at this rate, it doesn’t make much difference which direction we’re headed in.

DAN: Come on, Mike. Don’t be so cynical. If you’d just stop rubbing people’s noses in your performance record and try to see

things from their perspective, we could calm things down around here. Then maybe we could start building consensus.

Mike’s emotions betray his impatience with the pace of the organization; he becomes agitated.

MIKE: I’ve always admired your judgment, and I value your friendship, but I honestly think you’re kidding yourself. You

seem to think you can get this firm to look like it’s progressive––shrugging off its stodgy image––without taking any risks or

ruffling any feathers. Are you interested in appearance or substance? If you want appearance, then hire a good PR person. If

you want substance, then back me up and we’ll rewrite the record book. Get off the fence, Dan, before your butt’s full of

slivers.

DAN: Mike, it simply isn’t that easy. I’m not EPI, I’m simply its caretaker. You know we make decisions around here by

consensus; that’s the backbone of this organization. To move ahead, the confidence of the others has to be won, especially the

confidence of the seniors. Frankly, your reputation as a maverick makes it hard to foster confidence in, and loyalty to, your

plans.

MIKE: You knew my style when you hired me. Remember how you made it a point to promise me flexibility and autonomy?

I’m not getting that any more, Dan. All I’m getting is grief, even though I‘m running circles around your conservative cronies.

DAN: Well, that may be true. But your flamboyance

MIKE: Oh, yeah. The sports car, the singles lifestyle, the messy office. But, again, that’s appearance, Dan, not substance.

Performance is what counts. That’s what got me this far, and that’s my ticket out. You know I could walk into any firm in

town and write my own plan.

DAN: Well, there’s no reason to be hasty.

MIKE: Do you honestly believe this can be salvaged? I think not. Maybe it’s time for me to be moving on. Isn’t that why you

called me in here anyway?

Dan, feeling uncomfortable, breaks eye contact and shifts his gaze to the New York skyline. After a long pause, he continues, still gazing

out of the window.

DAN: I don’t know, Mike. I feel I’ve failed. My grand experiment in change has polarized the office; we’ve got two armies at

war out there. On the other hand, you really have done a good job here. EPI will no doubt lose a good part of its customer

base if you leave. You have a loyal following, with both customers and staff. If you go, so do they––along with our shot at

changing our image.

MIKE: It’s just like you, Dan, to take this problem personally. Blast it, you take everything personally. Even when I beat you

at racquetball. Your heart’s in the right place––you just can’t ever seem to make the cutthroat hit. You know and I know that

EPI needs a change in image. But it doesn’t appear to be ready for it yet. And I’m certainly not willing to move slowly.

DAN: Yeah. Maybe. It’s just hard to give up [long pause]. Well, why don’t we talk more about this after the reception tonight?

Come on over and see Joanie and the kids. Besides, I’m dying to show off my new boat.

MIKE: What you see in sailing is beyond me. It’s a waste of time, lazily drifting on gentle breezes.

36

DAN: Save it for later, “Speed King.” I’ve got to get ready for tonight.

83)

What would you do to generate a solution? What might the solution be?

84)

Describe an example (real or fictional) of avoiding as a conflict management approach. Diagnose whether the

use of avoiding was appropriate to the situation and, if not, what approach would have been preferable.

85)

Compare and contrast the four responses to interpersonal conflict other than collaborating. Also, briefly identify

the situation where each response would be most appropriate.