Discussion 2: “Slowest Horse.” Consider this scenario: Mr. Brown and Mr. Green have argued several times about which one of them has the slowest horse. They have swapped stories, each telling of the races his horse has lost, but each man also has failed to convince the other that his horse was the slowest. Please respond to the following: Create the best solution for solving the problem of who owns the slowest horse. Explain your reasons for why you believe your solution would solve the two men’s problem. Describe a dilemma of your own with a problem similar to the one in the “Slowest Horse” scenario. Provide a possible solution for at least two (2) other students’ dilemmas.

The scenario involving Mr. Brown and Mr. Green highlights a common challenge in conflict resolution: the need for a fair, objective method to determine who truly has the slowest horse. One effective solution is to implement a neutral, standardized race under strict supervision to objectively measure each horse’s speed. This approach removes subjective opinions and biases, relying instead on empirical data derived from a controlled environment. The race should be conducted on the same course, under similar weather conditions, with witnesses to ensure transparency and fairness. The horse whose time exceeds a predetermined threshold or who finishes last in this controlled race would be deemed the slowest.

This solution addresses the core issue by providing a definitive, observable outcome rather than relying on each man’s anecdotal stories, which are prone to exaggeration or selective memory. It establishes a verifiable criterion, thus persuading both parties that the result is legitimate. Furthermore, it encourages a focus on factual evidence rather than subjective interpretation, thereby reducing future disputes.

An alternative dilemma similar to the “Slowest Horse” involves two neighbors disputing over a shared driveway. Each neighbor claims the lane is on their property and refuses to allow the other to park or access it. To resolve this dispute, a neutral land surveyor could be hired to measure property boundaries objectively. Based on the survey data, property lines would be established definitively, settling the ownership and usage rights. This process relies on empirical evidence, reducing emotional tension and ensuring an equitable resolution.

Another comparable dilemma involves two friends disputing over who owes the other more money after a joint vacation. Each has a different record of expenses and payments, leading to disagreement. In this case, reviewing bank statements, receipts, and transaction records provides objective evidence to determine the actual amount owed. Using concrete financial documentation removes ambiguity and helps both parties reach a fair settlement based on verifiable data.

Discussion 1: “Who Do You Ask What?”

In the scenario about the alumni association president struggling to secure attendance for meetings, the core problem involves low participation despite repeated efforts. The key components include the president, alumni members, and the election process. To gather necessary information, I would ask the alumni members about their reasons for not attending—whether it’s scheduling conflicts, lack of interest, or other barriers. Specific questions might include: “What prevents you from attending the meetings?” and “What would encourage you to participate more?”

For the president, I would inquire about her past outreach efforts, methods of communication used, and any feedback received from alumni. Questions such as “What strategies have you tried to increase attendance?” and “What challenges have you faced in engaging alumni?” would help understand the underlying issues. To better understand the election process, I would ask about the frequency of meetings, how nominees are selected, and what barriers exist to participation.

If additional information is needed, I would seek data through surveys or direct conversations with a broader group of alumni to identify common themes and preferences. This could involve distributing anonymous questionnaires or hosting informal focus groups. In some cases, reviewing past meeting records and attendance data would also provide insights into patterns and trends that could inform future strategies.

Similarly, in the case of the proposed highway bypass through an affluent residential area, I would question residents, county officials, and business owners to understand the various perspectives involved. Questions for residents might include “How would the bypass impact your daily life and property values?” For officials, questions could include “What are the economic implications of the bypass?” and for business owners, “How might the bypass influence foot traffic and sales?” Gathering balanced information from all stakeholders is essential to developing a comprehensive understanding before proposing solutions.

In the case of Marcus and Arishonne, I would ask about their work schedules, specific domestic responsibilities, and how their routines could be balanced more effectively. Questions such as “What tasks are most time-consuming?” and “Are there aspects of shared responsibilities that can be delegated or automated?” could help identify practical adjustments to free up time and reduce stress.

In the scenario involving the secretary unable to print a document, I would ask about the technical details: “Is the printer connected and turned on?” “Are there any error messages?” and “Has the printer been working correctly previously?” Troubleshooting steps might include checking the printer’s connection, verifying the network status, and restarting the device or the computer.

References

• Kirby, P., & Goodpaster, K. (2007). Thinking: The life of the mind and the moral sense. New York: Harper Collins.
• Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Penguin Books.
• Thompson, L. (2015). The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator. Pearson.
• Lewicki, R. J., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. M. (2015). Negotiation. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Shell, G. R. (2006). Bargaining for advantage: Negotiation strategies for reasonable people. Penguin.
• Rubin, J. Z., & Brown, B. R. (2015). The Social Psychology of Bargaining. Academic Press.
• Kolb, D. M., & Williams, J. (2000). The Shadow Negotiation: How Women Can Master the Hidden Agendas That Determine Bargaining Success. Simon & Schuster.
• Ury, W. (1991). Getting Past No: Negotiating in Difficult Situations. Bantam.
• Carnevale, P. J., & Pruitt, D. G. (1992). Negotiation in Social Conflict. Open University Press.
• Fisher, R., & Shapiro, D. (2005). Beyond Reason: Using Emotions as You Negotiate. Penguin Books.