The latter dissemination of discontent was particularly problematic as murmurings filled the company concerning the presence of some internal resistance. Most importantly for our company was the removal of the impulse for resistance. It was our view, and the view of the present text, that any such dissension could lead to serious morale issues. Therefore, it was incumbent upon us to at least weight the position offered by our dissenting colleagues. Our strategy for navigating the conflict toward compromise -- as this is defined by our primary text -- would be to select those opposition leaders who had been most vocal and influential to form internal teams and develop competing proposals. These proposals would require that the selected representative developed and delineated plans for the improvement of processes and efficiencies that might fall within the scope...

In other words, without ceding any ground up from on the dedication of resources to marketing, we would ask company members to offer alternative marketing plans which met our projected advertising goals but which still left resources for the meaningful improvement of the operation itself.
Ultimately, this style of compromise would prove most beneficial not just to the morale of the company but to its viability. We eventually did select a plan -- with some modifications -- offered by an opposition leader. The plan was selected because it most effectively balanced all represented interests while helping to drive the company toward its initial marketing goals. Quite in fact, these marketing ambitions were all more successful because they were attached to a company in the process of improving its all-around efficiency.