Case 1:
Shirley and Abdul both work for a software development company. The General Manager of the new product division was originally the leader of the project team for which she interviewed and hired Abdul. Shirley, another project team member, also interviewed Abdul, but strongly opposed hiring him for the project because she thought he was not competent to do the job.Seven months after Abdul was hired, the General Manager left the project to start her own company and recommended that Abdul and Shirley serve as joint project leaders. Shirley agreed reluctantly with the stipulation that it be made clear she was not working for Abdul. The General Manager consented; Shirley and Abdul were to share the project leadership.Within a month Shirley was angry because Abdul was representing himself to others as the leader of the entire project and giving the impression that Shirley was working for him. Now Shirley and Abdul are meeting with you to see if you can resolve the conflict between them.Shirley says: "Right after the joint leadership arrangement was reached with the General Manager, Abdul called a meeting of the project team without even consulting me about the time or content. He just told me when it was being held and said I should be there. At the meeting, Abdul reviewed everyone's duties line by line, including mine, treating me as just another team member working for him. He sends out letters and signs himself as project director, which obviously implies to others that I am working for him."Abdul says: "Shirley is all hung up with feelings of power and titles. Just because I sign myself as project director doesn't mean she is working for me. I don't see anything to get excited about. What difference does it make? She is too sensitive about everything. I call a meeting and right away she thinks I'm trying to run everything. Shirley has other things to do, other projects to run, so she doesn't pay too much attention to this one. She mostly lets things slide. But when I take the initiative to set up a meeting, she starts jumping up and down about how I am trying to make her work for me."
Questions Regarding This Conflict
1. Abdul and Shirley seem to have several conflicts occurring simultaneously. Identify as many of these individual conflicts as possible.
2. What are the possible ways to deal with the conflict between Abdul and Shirley (not just the ones that you would recommend, but all of the options)?
3. Given all the benefits of retrospection, what could or should have been done to avoid this conflict in the first place?
Case 2: The high cost of doing good case:
The Board of Directors of the Winds of Change international hurricane relief agency are listening to a proposal for a new advertising campaign. The proposal is to use direct mail, telemarketing, spot ads and television infomercials that will focus only on the most appealing aspects of the WOC organization’s work—rescuing pets and children affected by a tsunami—even though much of the aid is for prevention and reconstruction following seasonal storms. The advertising campaign is estimated to bring a huge increase in donations: at least 100%, doubling the organization’s 2 million dollar yearly budget to 4 million dollars. The costs of the increased advertising, mailing and promotional staff costs are high, however—rising 1000%, from only $200k to $2 million (it also takes a larger percentage of each dollar contributed—from 10 cents to 50 cents on the dollar). Still, the net gain is considerable, an additional $200,000 for relief work (ie, from $1.8 to 2 million) which is a 20% increase in the WOC net and significant additional funds for those in need. You are a member of the board of directors as it heatedly discusses the proposal. You are part of one of the follow cliques within the board:
-A third of the members of the board who think that this expenditure is justified.
-A third of the members of the board who think that this approach is wrong.
-A third of the members of the board who are undecided, and will be swayed by the arguments of one or other of the two sides.
1. What issue(s) does each clique raise to the board.
2. What questions does the undecided group ask, and how do the other members respond?
3. Is a compromise possible?
Shirley and Abdul both work for a software development company. The General Manager of the new product division was originally the leader of the project team for which she interviewed and hired Abdul. Shirley, another project team member, also interviewed Abdul, but strongly opposed hiring him for the project because she thought he was not competent to do the job.Seven months after Abdul was hired, the General Manager left the project to start her own company and recommended that Abdul and Shirley serve as joint project leaders. Shirley agreed reluctantly with the stipulation that it be made clear she was not working for Abdul. The General Manager consented; Shirley and Abdul were to share the project leadership.Within a month Shirley was angry because Abdul was representing himself to others as the leader of the entire project and giving the impression that Shirley was working for him. Now Shirley and Abdul are meeting with you to see if you can resolve the conflict between them.Shirley says: "Right after the joint leadership arrangement was reached with the General Manager, Abdul called a meeting of the project team without even consulting me about the time or content. He just told me when it was being held and said I should be there. At the meeting, Abdul reviewed everyone's duties line by line, including mine, treating me as just another team member working for him. He sends out letters and signs himself as project director, which obviously implies to others that I am working for him."Abdul says: "Shirley is all hung up with feelings of power and titles. Just because I sign myself as project director doesn't mean she is working for me. I don't see anything to get excited about. What difference does it make? She is too sensitive about everything. I call a meeting and right away she thinks I'm trying to run everything. Shirley has other things to do, other projects to run, so she doesn't pay too much attention to this one. She mostly lets things slide. But when I take the initiative to set up a meeting, she starts jumping up and down about how I am trying to make her work for me."
Questions Regarding This Conflict
1. Abdul and Shirley seem to have several conflicts occurring simultaneously. Identify as many of these individual conflicts as possible.
2. What are the possible ways to deal with the conflict between Abdul and Shirley (not just the ones that you would recommend, but all of the options)?
3. Given all the benefits of retrospection, what could or should have been done to avoid this conflict in the first place?
Case 2: The high cost of doing good case:
The Board of Directors of the Winds of Change international hurricane relief agency are listening to a proposal for a new advertising campaign. The proposal is to use direct mail, telemarketing, spot ads and television infomercials that will focus only on the most appealing aspects of the WOC organization’s work—rescuing pets and children affected by a tsunami—even though much of the aid is for prevention and reconstruction following seasonal storms. The advertising campaign is estimated to bring a huge increase in donations: at least 100%, doubling the organization’s 2 million dollar yearly budget to 4 million dollars. The costs of the increased advertising, mailing and promotional staff costs are high, however—rising 1000%, from only $200k to $2 million (it also takes a larger percentage of each dollar contributed—from 10 cents to 50 cents on the dollar). Still, the net gain is considerable, an additional $200,000 for relief work (ie, from $1.8 to 2 million) which is a 20% increase in the WOC net and significant additional funds for those in need. You are a member of the board of directors as it heatedly discusses the proposal. You are part of one of the follow cliques within the board:
-A third of the members of the board who think that this expenditure is justified.
-A third of the members of the board who think that this approach is wrong.
-A third of the members of the board who are undecided, and will be swayed by the arguments of one or other of the two sides.
1. What issue(s) does each clique raise to the board.
2. What questions does the undecided group ask, and how do the other members respond?
3. Is a compromise possible?
Comments
Post a Comment