Conflict Resolution in the Workplace

Conflict Resolution in the Workplace

The organization in question is a design firm which works for a range of major clients in the luxury goods industry. This design firm is responsible for the artwork and advertising materials for cruise lines, designer luggage lines and several watch companies. There's a high standard of excellence and at certain times of year, tensions can run high. One issue that has repeatedly manifested in terms of conflict is the overall style of our design firm for the bulk of our clients. Some of the leaders of the firm feel like the signature style should be elegant, modern and minimalist. Other leaders feel that we should make our signature style one which is classic, traditional and evocative of times past. Other team leaders feel that our signature style should simply be one which is eclectic and responsive to whatever the client needs -- essentially, via this viewpoint, these team leaders want to abolish the concept of a "signature style." The parties involves are the six CEOs of the design firm. While the designers themselves have strong opinions, they're more neutral, ultimately just wanting the CEOs to come to a decision. However, the neutral third party was a designer who's worked in a range of high fashion houses. He was chosen because of his haute couture background and because he specializes in both classic and modern design as well as his strong background in settling disputes among parties in the art world.

Part Two

A neutral third party was required in this case because all parties were able to agree that they were tired of having the same conversation over and over again and that it was slowing the overall productivity of the company. Clients also seemed more unsure of us and perhaps reluctant to get on board with us, because it appeared as though we didn't have a clear vision of what we wanted the firm to be.

The neutral third party was able to facilitate discussions by first speaking with the separate parties alone, allowing them to vent in private and to really communicate what they wanted for the overall vision of the company. This allowed them to vent any pent up frustration, making them more pliable to mediation, and it allow the mediator to get a clearer understanding of what the separate parties wanted.

The mediator coached each separate party about the most appropriate way to discuss their opinion and how to avoid negative words, put downs or other forms of loaded language. The three parties met at a round table with the mediator at the head of the table. Each party was allowed to speak without interruption for five full minutes, explaining the signature style they wanted for the firm and why. Then each party was encouraged to make a proposal to the other side in search of a potential compromise. For example, one side suggested that if they were allowed to the keep the signature style classic, they would allow the office and headquarter to be decorated in a minimalist style. All in all, the proposals made by all sides were not balanced enough and the mediator had to suggest several potential proposals before one was eventually agreed upon.

Part Three

Had I been the mediator of this case, I would have used some of the techniques taken by the mediator and thrown out others. For example, I like the way the mediator began: speaking to each party alone did allow for some necessary venting and gave one a clear perspective on what exactly each respective side wanted. However, there were several things the mediator should have enforced better: for example, parties didn't respect the time limits that had been set for them and consistently talked longer, demonstrating a lack of respect for everyone in the room. Furthermore, some of the parties used mildly pejorative language to put down the other parties' point-of-view which led the mediation astray as feathers were ruffled and the mediator had to do damage control.