This paper applies Wall and Callister's (1995) conflict cycle framework to a real-world real estate case involving nondisclosure of asbestos and a prior death at a property. The paper examines conflict at interpersonal, intergroup, and interorganizational levels, tracing the causes of the dispute to miscommunication, misrepresentation, and competing financial interests. It evaluates the roles of fiduciary responsibility and the Realtor Code of Ethics, the cascading effects of the conflict on multiple parties, and how the situation was ultimately resolved without litigation. The analysis illustrates how multi-level conflicts can be managed through direct agent negotiation and practical compromise.
According to Wall and Callister (1995), conflict may occur at the interpersonal level, in which an individual comes into conflict with others. Conflict may also occur at the intergroup level, whereby some degree of contention exists between or among groups. Finally, conflict may occur between or among organizations, which is known as interorganizational conflict. Regardless of the level, experiencing conflict breeds frustration, anxiety, and the fear of an unknown outcome. Although these associated feelings are a byproduct of an unpleasant yet natural occurrence, it is necessary for people to progress through the cycle.
"As with any social process, there are causes; also, there is a core process which has results or effects. These effects feed back to affect the causes. Such a conflict cycle takes place within a context (environment) and the cycle will flow through numerous iterations" (Wall & Callister, 1995, p. 516). The following case is presented to evaluate a situational conflict's cause, process, and effects.
In the field of real estate, one encounters numerous ethically and socially challenging situations, many of which can border on litigation. Several years ago, after working with some clients for quite some time, an agent was finally able to close a deal. A family moved into their new home and was excited about being first-time homeowners. Two days after closing, the sellers knocked on their door and informed them that a previous death had occurred at the property. Additionally, the sellers handed the buyers disclosure papers noting the presence of asbestos.
Afterwards, the buyers' agent received an alarming and angry call from her clients, who demanded an explanation. The buyers' agent could not believe what was happening. What did the sellers have to gain by disclosing this information after the fact? Immediately, the buyers' agent called the sellers' agent to ask whether he was aware of this — and sure enough, he was. Moreover, the sellers' agent had not felt the need to disclose this information and was surprised that the sellers had decided to share such disturbing news after the sale had closed.
This is a complex situation involving three main issues. First, asbestos is a health and safety issue that needed to be addressed immediately. Second, the death at the property was a material issue for the buyers. Third, the agency relationship created tension between the two real estate brokerages, which now had to determine where the burden of proof actually lay. In the midst of this interorganizational conflict, interpersonal and intergroup conflict created a multi-level dispute: the brokerage entities were in conflict, the buyers were in conflict with the sellers, and the real estate agents of both entities were in conflict with one another.
Consequently, the buyers felt betrayed due to the lack of disclosure regarding the asbestos and the death at the property, and they wanted to pursue legal action against all parties to the transaction. If misrepresentation could be proven, the contract could potentially have been rescinded, with a monetary settlement awarded.
Conflict is defined as a process in which one party perceives that its interests are being opposed or negatively affected by another party. This case clearly demonstrates that definition. The buyers felt that they were negatively affected by both real estate agents and the sellers, leaving them feeling vulnerable and victimized by the nondisclosure. The conflict was complex and multifaceted in nature.
"Multiplicity increases the chances for goals to generate conflict; yet, once there is conflict, the multiple issues provide an opportunity for the parties to set trades and face-saving exits from the conflict. Similarly, complex issues generate conflict via tension and confusion. However, complex issues can often be dissected into a number of smaller or simpler ones, which can be traded" (Wall & Callister, 1995).
"Miscommunication and misrepresentation as conflict causes"
"Ethics, fiduciary duty, and organizational fallout"
"How agents negotiated an out-of-court settlement"
Undoubtedly, conflict is inevitable and necessitates evaluation of its causes, processes, and effects in order to appropriately handle situations that affect morale, productivity, and leadership. Its effects permeate various levels — individually, organizationally, and globally. When individual and interpersonal characteristics erode the moral foundations of a relationship, conflict will ensue and leave long-lasting residue that can harm one's reputation. Efforts should therefore be expended to mitigate conflict at the lowest possible level, eliminating the need for escalation.
You’re 56% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.