Conflict Solution – Why the project team didn’t work smoothly?

                                                             The Case Introduction

The RGB Group works very well for Collaboration course, so we don't think it’s a good study case for conflict solution analysis. We chose other project team from another course, which didn’t run very well so far. Following is the brief introduction of the case.

 

There are six group members in this project team, each with much diversified backgrounds. As for gender, there are three male and three female. As for nationality, two came from two different European countries of Norway and France, one came from US, and the left three are from different parts of China. They all majored in different disciplines in their undergraduate education, and they have different working experiences, one worked for many years, two of them had worked about one year, and three of them had no working experiences at all.

 

Judging from some incidents, we could know that the project team didn’t work smoothly. For example, meetings were run in ineffectively way from the very beginning. There were always some members from China being late or the one from France failed to present in the discussion meeting; there were always someone asked same questions that had been discussed and settled in last meeting. Then the one worked for many years created a meeting agenda and minutes as standard format, and suggested all team members to keep it in turn, so to try to improve the situation from the way of running a meeting, it only got response from one of member who worked about a year. All others kept silence and so nothing changed with respecting to running the meetings.

 

It got worse later. The team seemed to lack of motivation and passion to move on. When someone posted a new idea in wechat, few members had interests to give feedbacks or response it very lately. The team missed the deadline for one of assignment for the project work, because the one from France who see to part of file preparation couldn't be connected via phone or wechat. Once, the other one who came from Norway said to team that he had very low expectations about the course, and the whole team echoed same voice with him soon.     

 

In this assignment, our team, RGB team will analyse the above case from three aspects of background conflict, personality conflict and communication conflict to elaborate the conflict solutions. Please refer to each individual's blog for more details for each aspect.

  

MGT6209_RGB_Complaint Letter-why I am not the Miyoshi Student candidate?

Part I: why we chose this case

We exchanged in our discussion some incidents, which we thought we had been treated unfairly in the past. But we finally chose this one from Alice as our study case. For reasons as below:

Unlike other cases we brought up that happened in our adult age, which were usually related to business or conflict interest issues, this case has a very clear and concise background about a girl failed to be honoured as the Miyoshi Student as she wanted. It happened in teenage stage, and it arouses us that each of us has similar experience. So, it simply triggers our curiosity to check what a teenage world look likes from an adult’s eyes; and to discover the proper communication way between the adult and teenage.

Part II: the Complaint Letter

Dear Mr. Xu,

I am writing to you to complaint about being treated unfairly by you.

Two other students with me went to the Teacher’s Office this morning, and we heard by accidently from Teacher Li and Teacher Liang, who saying that you decided to choose student Wang Hu instead of me, as the Miyoshi Student candidate to represent our class to compete for the Miyoshi Student honor of the whole city. 

As you have announced before that to be a Miyoshi Student candidate, according to the qualification requirement from the Education Bureau, one has to rank to top 3 in the academic grades, and he or she has to win most of votes in the whole class’s voting process. As you well know that I usually ranked before or the 3^rd place in all examinations, and I am the student who won most votes from classmates in the voting of last week. So, to be short, as the fact I perceived that I have met all qualifications announced by you to be the Miyoshi Student, so I should be the Miyoshi Student candidate.

To be honest with you, I feel so angry and disappointing with you now. I don’t understand why you do like this. For that you always teach us to be honest with others and ourselves. I believe that you should keep your own words, means, to elect the one who ranked top 3 in grades and won most votes from classmates to be the Miyoshi Student candidate. But you ate your own words now. I believe that you should remember well that Wang Hu got 8 votes less than me during the voting last week, although he always rank top one in the academic grades. So, I really don’t understand why you chose him instead of me as the Miyoshi Student candidate.

And I am angry with you that you even didn’t tell me about such result. I don’t know how to face with my friends and parents now. Because I have told them that I was elected by the whole class as Miyoshi Student candidate. Now, you changed the result individually without informing me timely, I am going to lose face in front of them. What a shame!

Considering what you said before, and what you have done with me, I want you to explain publicly why you didn’t choose me as the Miyoshi Student candidate. I feel that I can build trust on you only in this way, and continue the study in your class in future.

Thank you,

Alice

 

Part Ⅲ: Analysis- Why this complaint arisen

To begin with, let’s conclude the reality and facts as follows.

1. A student should be chose from the class to participate the competition for the Miyoshi Student honor of the whole city.

2. According to the qualification requirement from the Education Bureau, Miyoshi Student candidate should rank to top 3 in the academic grades, and he or she has to win most of votes in the whole class’s voting process.

3. Alice was the top 3 student in academic grades, and she also won the most of votes from her classmates.

4. Wang Hu was the top 1 student in academic grades, and he got 8 votes less than Alice during the voting.

5. Alice heard by accidently from other teachers that Mr. Xu already determined Wang Hu as the Miyoshi student candidate.

 

Then, according to the Ladder of Inference theory, let’s have a look at why this conflict arisen based on the analysis of the different perspectives from Mr. Xu and Alice.

From Alice’s perspective:

Selected reality

Mr. Wu determined to choose Wang Hu instead of Alice to be the Miyoshi student candidate without telling Alice. And Alice was the only student in the class who met the qualification requirements from the Education Bureau.

Interpreted Reality

Mr. Wu wanted to change the voting result secretly without informing the students.

Assumptions

Mr. Wu would eat his own words.

Conclusion

Alice was going to lose face in front of her classmates and parents.

Beliefs

Mr. Wu might dislike Alice. And Mr. Wu couldn’t be trusted.

 

From Mr Wu’s perspective:

Selected reality

Wang Hu was the top one student of the class. He only got 8 votes less than Alice during the voting.

Interpreted Reality

Wang Hu would have more possibility to win the Miyoshi Student honor in the whole city, since he had better academic record than Alice.

Assumptions

Alice had very small chance to win the Miyoshi Student honor, so this opportunity was not that important for her.

Conclusion

Mr. Wu could confirm the Miyoshi Student first and then find an opportunity to explain to Alice and other students.

Beliefs

The students would agree with him that the only chance should not be wasted. And Alice would understand this too.

As a consequence, because of the different values and perceptions of Mr. Xu and Alice, Alice thought she was offended by Mr. Xu and Mr. Xu may don’t think so.

 

Part IV: How to walk down the ladder of inference

 

1.      Speak up your mind

For Mr. Wu, he should have explained to Alice his reasons why he changed the result, instead of changing it without telling her. Alice was a considerate student, if he explained to her based on the benefit of the school, we believe that she would understand it. However, because of his action, the incident turned into a disrespecting behavior. To Alice, whether to be a Miyoshi Student candidate was not that important any more, what she needed was respect and dignity. So, we should not just climb up the ladder and make conclusion by ourselves, instead, we should speak up and explain our thoughts to others. Otherwise, it will cause some conflicts you even never expect, as the other people will have their own reasoning process.

 

2.      Slow your inference process down

We always could not be aware of how quickly we climb up the ladder, and make our conclusion. Thus, sometimes we make wrong conclusion not because we are unreasonable people, just because we climb up the ladder so quick that we don’t have enough time to think it through. If we slow the process down a little bit, maybe you will have better interpretation of the fact, and the conclusion will be more reasonable. By the same token, our actions will not hurt anyone.

For Mr. Wu, when he interpreted to himself that Alice would understand his decision and he would find a chance to explain to her. He selected one fact Alice would understand his decision, but neglected the fact that Alice was a person need respect. Therefore, if Mr. Wu didn’t interpreted the fact so quick and think about another fact he ignored, maybe Alice would not be so angry.

For Alice, if she could control the disappointment for a while, and didn’t just focus on the fact Mr. Wu changed the decision. Furthermore, took a minute to think about the intention of changing the decision, maybe she would not interpreted it as disrespecting. Consequently, we should slow down when climbing up the ladder, then think about every step of the ladder of inference and think about that of others. 

 

3.      Reflect on your own interpretation thought

When we are interpreting the information, sometimes we just interpret based on the hypothesis rather than the fact. The hypothesis is usually affected by our experience and value, sometimes they become some kinds of potential consciousness and we even don’t realize we are influenced by them. So, before we interpret the information, we should reflect whether we interpret on the basis of the fact; if it doesn’t, we should stop climbing up the ladder and reinterpret the information. If not, we will definitely have a wrong conclusion. Like Alice’s interpretation, when she knew the news from other teachers before Mr. Wu’s explanation, she just climbed up the ladder and interpreted the information as Mr. Wu was going to change the decision secretly without telling her. Actually, Mr. Wu was going to tell her. So, sometimes we are not offended by other people, but by ourselves.

 

4.      Ask other people to help you point out problems of your inference process.

As some hypothesis and value become our potential consciousness, it is hard for us to realize our mistake, so it is necessary to ask help from other people who we can count on. We need to display our mind and reasoning process without concealing any information, let them diagnose that. For instance, if Mr. Wu communicated with another teacher who was more experienced first about his decision, he maybe was aware of that even though Alice was considerate, it would still hurt her dignity without telling her timely.

In conclusion, every step we climb up the ladder, we should take a while to reconsider whether it is right, whether is based on full facts. What’s more, we should take a look at the other party’s reference process, trying to understand their intentions behind actions. Good intention is not enough to avoid conflict, reasonable reference will be better to prevent conflict happening.

 

-end.