Unit 4 Case Study Power: The Structure Of Conflict ✓ Solved

Unit 4 Case Study Power The Structure Of Conflictche Baysing

Unit 4 Case Study Power The Structure Of Conflictche Baysinger Phd

“Finding Your Voice” “What is this?” shouted Roland Brewster as he read the report and laid it down on his desk. Amanda Ortega, one of the primary medical transcriptionists in the office, heard him over the quiet sound of her MP3 player. “I wish he wouldn’t raise his voice that way,” she thought. “Everyone can hear him.” Roland was now on the telephone to Kathy Myers, his business partner.

Kathy was the nice one, Amanda knew. Kathy appreciated Amanda’s performance and respected her ideas. She never yelled the way Roland did. What’s the matter with him, anyway? “The next time he needs me to work late,” she thought, “I am going to refuse. I’ll tell him I am taking a class or something. He doesn’t deserve my extra time.” Just then, Kathy walked into the main office area and asked Amanda about the report. “What do you think about changing these last few paragraphs? I just spoke with Roland and he doesn’t like the way they read. I think you can figure this out, but I’ll check with you later to see what you’ve come up with.”

“Sure, Kathy. I’ll look them over first thing in the morning,” Amanda replied. It was nearly time to go home. “I really want to quit this job,” Amanda told her partner, Chris, later that evening. “I would, too, if Kathy wasn’t so nice. I know Roland thinks those mistakes on the report are my fault. He always does. I wish I didn’t have to work with him, at all.” “Have you talked with Roland about how he treats you?” Chris asked. “Think of all you do for them. You know how to run all the equipment, where the supplies are kept, and when you need to reorder everything. You welcome the clients and explain things to them. You know all their crazy medical terms better than anyone in the office, and can make customers understand what’s going on. They’d lose half their business if it wasn’t for you, and it would take them a long time to train someone new. Maybe you can ask Roland to come to you directly when he has a problem. He doesn’t need to go through Kathy, and he doesn’t need to shout. Just talk to him honestly the way you talk to me, but a little more formally.

“I always feel nervous around Roland,” Amanda admits. “He’s so loud and demanding. He makes me feel like I don’t have any sense. I know I’ve worked there for three years, but I don’t know… I am not afraid to share my ideas with you or with Kathy. It’s just him.” “Well, it seems to me that the more you struggle against him without letting him know, the less likely you will ever be able to talk with him,” Chris responds. “And, you’ll always want to quit.” The next day, Amanda rewrites the end of the report. She sends Kathy a text message asking her to come look it over so they can determine if her changes are suitable. She also decides that she wants to improve her relationship with Roland, keep her job, and enjoy her time at work.

Paper For Above Instructions

Executive Summary

This case depicts a small workplace conflict shaped by interpersonal power differences, communication patterns, and perceived injustices. Amanda feels diminished by Roland’s loud, authoritarian demeanor, while Kathy’s supportive style buffers Amanda’s dissatisfaction. The conflict centers on power use, tone, and communication channels rather than substantive work performance. This paper analyzes the power structure and conflict dynamics, diagnoses key issues, and recommends concrete interventions Amanda and the organization can apply.

Diagnosing Power and Conflict

Roland’s behavior illustrates dominance-based power use: he exerts coercive and legitimate power (yelling, direction, and positional influence) while minimizing relational influence (French & Raven, 1959). Amanda’s influence derives from expert and referent power—she possesses crucial procedural knowledge and client-facing skills that the firm relies on (French & Raven, 1959; Pfeffer, 2010). The tension arises when formal positional power (Roland) is used in a way that undermines informal, expertise-based authority (Amanda), generating emotional withdrawal and intent to quit (Robbins & Judge, 2019).

Conflict here is interpersonal, largely affecting psychological safety and communication climate (Edmondson, 1999). Amanda’s avoidance and internalization of grievance signal an accommodation/avoidance pattern (Thomas-Kilmann model), which risks escalation or turnover if unresolved (Thomas & Kilmann, 1974).

Why This Structure Produces Problems

When authority is expressed through public shaming or loud directives, it activates threat responses and reduces openness to feedback (Goleman, 2006). Roland’s approach likely produces compliance but not commitment, lowering intrinsic motivation and reducing information sharing (Yukl, 2013). Kathy’s supportive stance mitigates damage but also enables a two-tiered communication norm—Amanda hears different messages from each partner, increasing role ambiguity and mistrust (Kahn et al., 1964).

Recommended Interventions

Short-term, individual-level actions for Amanda: (1) Prepare a structured, calm request for a private conversation with Roland—use assertive, not aggressive, language; describe specific behaviors, their impact, and preferred alternatives (I-statements) (Fisher & Ury, 1981). (2) Document examples of performance and contributions to reinforce expert-based assertions. (3) Use negotiation strategies to propose clearer feedback channels (direct instead of via Kathy) (Lewicki, Saunders, & Barry, 2016).

For Roland and the partners: (1) Implement brief communication-grounding guidelines for staff interactions—avoid public reprimands, require private corrective feedback, and standardize message routing to reduce mixed signals (Robbins & Judge, 2019). (2) Provide coaching to Roland on emotional intelligence and constructive feedback to convert coercive expressions into influence practices that build commitment (Goleman, 2006; Yukl, 2013). (3) Institute periodic team debriefs to create psychological safety, allowing staff to raise concerns without fear (Edmondson, 1999).

Organizationally, consider a mediated facilitated discussion led by an external HR professional or trained mediator to surface perceptions and co-create norms for communication and workload expectations (Rahim, 2011). A mediation can re-balance perceived power differences by establishing agreed-upon behavioral contracts and follow-up checkpoints (Fisher & Ury, 1981; Lewicki et al., 2016).

Expected Outcomes and Metrics

Successful interventions should produce measurable improvements: reduced turnover intent (survey), increased perceived psychological safety and fairness (climate surveys), and fewer public corrective episodes logged (internal reporting). Short-term indicators include Amanda’s willingness to voice ideas and Roland’s reduction in raised-voice incidents. Long-term gains include improved client satisfaction and service continuity because expert staff like Amanda remain engaged (Pfeffer, 2010).

Practical Script and Steps

Suggested script for Amanda (private meeting): “Roland, I value our work and want to discuss the report. When feedback is delivered loudly in public, I feel undermined and less able to focus. I’m committed to accurate reports and would appreciate direct, private feedback or a quick check-in. This will help me continue contributing at my best.” This language follows evidence-based assertiveness and interest-based negotiation techniques to shift conflict toward problem solving (Fisher & Ury, 1981; Thomas & Kilmann, 1974).

Conclusion

The case illustrates how positional power used without relational skills creates avoidant conflict and turnover risk. Framing interventions around communication protocols, coaching, and mediation leverages Amanda’s expert power while moderating Roland’s coercive style. These practical steps—combined with follow-up metrics—can restore psychological safety, reduce conflict, and retain critical staff.

References

• Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
• Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Penguin Books.
• French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in Social Power (pp. 150–167). University of Michigan.
• Goleman, D. (2006). Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. Bantam Books.
• Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M., & Barry, B. (2016). Negotiation (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
• Pfeffer, J. (2010). Power: Why Some People Have It—and Others Don’t. Harper Business.
• Rahim, M. A. (2011). Managing Conflict in Organizations (4th ed.). Transaction Publishers.
• Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2019). Organizational Behavior (18th ed.). Pearson.
• Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (1974). Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument. CPP, Inc.
• Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in Organizations (8th ed.). Pearson.