Kalaguirre post
chose case #1 - the interpersonal/organizational issue.
1. What are the Topics (T) of this conflict?
In this conflict, there are several topics that arise. The first brought up is the content of hiring a
replacement for Lee. Jim and two others come to an agreement that Nikki is the correct choice. As
others disagree, there is also the content issue of what qualifications should be in place for a new hire,
and subsequent debate on Nikki's merits in comparison to what the job requires.
Jim and Keith are also concerned about the funding the company receives for that position, the time a
new hire will take, and the subsequent loss in manpower associated with the process.
2. What are the Relational (R) issues of this conflict?
The relationships up for discussion are those between Jim, Keith, and John vs. Laura, Karl, and Celeste.
The second group is concerned that the first group has come to an agreement before even initiating this
meeting. That leaves Laura, Karl, and Celeste as feeling outside a perceived closer relationship between
Jim, Keith, and John.
Jim also accuses Celeste of only being motivated by a pursuit of opposition; that her decision may only
be based on the fact it is not what Jim wants.
Lastly, as a point in argument of Nikki's hire, Jim claims that if she is not offered the position, Nikki may
leave the company. This is an inference that her loyalty to the group would not be strong enough to
withstand getting passed for promotion
3. What Identity (I) issues can you identify?
As Jim accuses Celeste of being argumentative, she immediately feels defensive and comes back with a
similar accusation. She actually moves from the issue of Nikki's hire to a process complaint and
highlights a transactional goal, as a cover for her attacked identity as a fair participant in the discussion.
Additionally, Celeste makes an accusation that the reasons Nikki is good at her job as cited by Jim are
not in good faith and may be the result of lesser motives that make her a riskier candidate for the job.
4. What are some possible Process (P) issues involved in this conflict?
As the discussion dissolves, the group clearly shifts the discussion to issues about the process of Jim
coming to the meeting seeming to have already made a decision. Laura, Karl, and Celeste feel that he
had already made a decision and then only decided to meet for confirmation and maybe affirmation of
his decision rather than truly valuing their input. They also accused him of rallying support from more
amenable group members, whom he possibly identified as being accommodating styles, in order to use
strength in numbers against them.
5. What common interests can you identify for the parties on which to build possible resolution?
It would seem from the start of the discussion that they all wish to hire the best possible applicant for
the job. However, the group seems to differ in their priorities. Keith is concerned that Nikki will leave if
not hired, and he clearly prefers to keep her than hire a better candidate. If the group truly wishes to do
what is best, and if Nikki is truly a good employee, the conversation might shift to focus on the need to
balance Nikki's needs and wants with those of the company.
If Jim had not shifted the discussion to an accusation on Celeste, he may have continued to guide the
debate to the topic issues and worked through a pro/con list in open discussion, while acknowledging
the value of each person's input and given them stake in the solution.
Discussion: Week 7 - Positions & Interests
Welcome to this Discussion. Note that you have a choice which topic=thread you
contribute in.
In recently assigned chapters from KLS and chapter 3 in WH, you were introduced to a
fundamentally important issue in conflict analysis and resolution that can be summed up
the following way:
In words
•
•
•
In pictures
How we frame conflict
influences how we will
see possible solutions
and ways of solving
conflict.
Conflicts are usually
expressed
as positions, while they
really reflect
deeper interests and ne
eds.
Focusing on interests
can help parties
uncover hidden
problems and allow
them to identify which
issues are of most
concern to them.
Framing conflicts as interests rather than positions takes a bit of practice. Let's practice.
Pick your favourite topic and write your initial post in response to my post inside that
thread. You can choose between:
1. Interpersonal/Organizational,
2. Global.
•
Rather see you rest during the Reading week and perhaps read the 'Difficult
Conversations' book, but if need be, you may still post your responses for full credit
by end of week 8.
Case 1:
Interpersonal / Organizational
Issues
HOW DO WE HIRE?
To inform your responses, pay special attention to chapter 3 in
Wilmot & Hocker.
Study the following conversation and in your initial post, answer the
questions below.
In your follow-up posts, compare your take on the questions and
what other students highlighted in their responses.
Pick 5 questions to address in your
initial post:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
What are the Topics (T) of this conflict?
What are the Relational (R) issues of this conflict?
What Identity (I) issues can you identify?
What are some possible Process (P) issues involved in this conflict?
How do you predict this conversation will end?
What do you think the goals are for each of the parties?
What common interests can you identify for the parties on which to build possible
resolution?
8. What suggestions do you have for the parties in this conflict?
9. What is your favourite take-away from our readings on the topic of positions,
interests, and needs? For example, I find it very insightful that conflict resolution
practitioners need to have skills in soliciting interests from conflicted parties because
people often have problems identifying what they really need/want in a given
situation and tend to focus on their positions instead, which makes them stuck in
conflict. Explain how you plan to translate your best insight to practice.
Conversation
Background
Participants: John, Jim (the Director), Laura, Karl, Keith and Celeste
Setting: Mental health center
Situation: An opening for a full-time therapist has been created by one of the staff
therapists quitting
Jim: We need to fill this position since Lee is leaving. I suggest w
e hire Nikki full time. She’s done a great job as an intern, and the
kids seem to really like her. What do you think?
Keith:
Jim:
I agree. We should hire her.
Anyone else?
(Long silence)
John:
Jim:
Yeah, that’s okay with me.
Is there any discussion on this matter?
Laura: Yes. I don’t think we should hire Nikki without doing a search
. She does a good job, but we might be able to get someone even bette
r.
Karl:
I sort of feel that way, too.
Keith: I don’t think we could find anyone better. Besides, it could
take months to do it and we need the help right away, especially on th
e weekends.
Karl:
Yeah, but that doesn’t mean we should hire just anyone.
Jim: Nikki’s not just anyone. Plus, we could lose the funding if we
don’t hire right away. I’ve talked to Nikki about it—I’m sure she’d t
ake the position.
Keith:
y.
And if we don’t offer it to her, I think she’ll quit completel
Laura: Sounds like you guys have already figured it out.
even asking us if you’ve made up your mind already?
Why are you
Jim: There’s no “we” here, and I didn’t already make up my mind.
Celeste: I don’t think we should act so quickly. I’m not sure Nikki
is all that committed to her work. You say the kids like her, but per
sonally, I think she just likes having them do what she wants. She se
ems like a control freak to me. She likes having the kids like her.
Jim: What is it with you, Celeste? You always disagree with what this
group wants to do. Everyone wants this but you. I’m tired of your co
nstant opposition. You should listen to what we’re saying.
Celeste: What is it with me? Why do you act like we’re making a grou
p decision, when you already made a decision and obviously got Keith a
nd John to agree before talking to the rest of us?
Jim: If you can’t be a team player, then maybe it’s you who needs to
start looking for a new job.
Case 2:
Global Issues
CULTURE, APOLOGY, &
INTERNATIONAL
NEGOTIATION
To inform your responses, pay special attention to chapter 3 in
Wilmot & Hocker.
Study the fascinating real-life case featured in the journal article for
this week from Wang & Avruch, 2005 (download from HF
Course Guide, link in main course navigation).
In your initial post, answer the questions below.
In your follow-up posts, compare your take on the questions and
what other students highlighted in their responses. It is OK if your
answers differ.
Pick 5 questions to address in your
initial post:
1. What were the Topics (T) of this conflict?
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
What Relational (R) issues can you identify?
What Identity (I) issues can you identify?
What were some possible Process (P) issues involved in this conflict?
What do you think the goals were for each of the parties?
What common interests can you identify for the parties on which to build possible
resolution?
7. What do you think could have been done differently (better) by the parties in this
conflict?
8. What is your favourite take-away from this case that will inform your practice of
conflict prevention, management, and resolution? For example, mine is the following
"In the end, culture (cultural difference) was not so much an impediment or obstacle
in this negotiation, as it was, ironically, a resource.". Explain how you plan to
translate your best insight to practice.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment