Third-Party Conflict Resolution:
Instructions: Below is the case study in which possible intervention strategies (definitions included) need to be analyzed in at least 300 words. There are three intervention strategies outlined below in which the three of them need to be analyzed in terms of this particular case study. Do not select the most appropriate strategy for this study; simply analyze each of the strategies given its implementation in this case study; as I will determine which is the best strategy based upon your information. Thank You!
• Mediation – This means submitting the dispute to a neutral third party, the mediator, selected by the parties in the dispute. The mediation is often familiar with similar disputes.
• Arbitration – This also means submitting the dispute to a neutral third party, the arbitrator, who is a specialist in the area of the dispute, and his decision may be legally binding.
• Process Consultation – The objective of process consultation is to defuse the emotional aspect of conflict and improve communication between the parties, leaving them with renewed or enhanced ability to manage future disputes.
The Seatcor Manufacturing Company_Case Study
You are senior vice president of operations and chief operating officer of Seatcor, a major producer of office furniture. Joe Gibbons, your subordinate, is vice president and general manager of your largest desk assembly plant. Joe has been with Seatcor for 38 years and is two years away from retirement. He worked his way up through the ranks to his present position and has successfully operated his division for five years with a marginally competent staff. You are a long-standing personal friend of Joe’s and respect him a great deal. However, you have always had an uneasy feeling that Joe has surrounded himself with minimally competent people by his own choice. In some ways, you think he feels threatened by talented assistants.
Last week you were having lunch with Charles Stewart, assistant vice president and Joe’s second in command. Upon your questioning, it became clear that he and Joe were engaged in a debilitating feud. Charles was hired last year, largely at your insistence. You had been concerned for some time about who was going to replace Joe when he retired, especially given the lack of really capable managerial talent on Joe’s staff. Thus you prodded Joe to hire your preferred candidate – Charles Stewart. Charles is relatively young, 39, extremely tenacious and bright, and a well-trained business school graduate. From all reports he is doing a good job in his new position.
Your concern centers on a topic that arose at the end of your lunch. Charles indicated that Joe Gibbons is in the process of completing a five-year plan for his plant. This plan is to serve as the basis for several major plant reinvestment and reorganization decisions that would be proposed to senior management. According to Charles, Joe Gibbons has not included Charles in the planning process at all. You had to leave lunch quickly and were unable to get much more information from Charles. However, he did admit that he was extremely disturbed by this exclusion and that his distress was influencing his work and probably his relationship with Joe.
You consider this a very serious problem. Charles will probably have to live with the results of any major decisions about the plan. More importantly, Joe’s support is essential if Charles is to properly grow into his present and/or future job. Joe, on the other hand, runs a good ship and you do not want to upset him or undermine his authority. Moreover, you know Joe has good judgment; thus he may have a good reason for what he is doing.