The same actions in one situation may fail in another situation -- it is not good enough to apply the same tactics to each situation in an unthinking manner. I have experienced this in the past, when working with difficult employees as a supervisor. Some employees have different triggers than others, so what works at motivation with one employee will be viewed by another employee with skepticism. It is important as a manager attempting to work through disputes in the workplace to understand that each situation is unique, calling for unique analysis and unique solutions. The Calgary Oil case essentially supports my own experiences with these types of situations. This reinforces the lessons I have learned, and will compel me to apply these lessons in the future when faced with disputes in the workplace. One of the things that is important...

While the actions in each situation were more or less the same, the process used to derive these actions was different. The Canadian process allowed the employees to become engaged and motivated, while the Colorado process did not.
Evaluation

If nothing else, the Calgary Oil scenario illustrates the importance of the process in determining how to approach workplace dispute resolution. However, the takeaway is that the process may vary from situation to situation. As a manager, I must have a number of different weapons in my arsenal that I can use to work through each situation individually, rather than attempting to utilize a blanket solution for all problems, as this is likely to fail.