Description
Midwestern: Contemporary Art
Read the Midwestern: Contemporary Art case study. Prepare an analysis of the case study that addresses the following objectives:
Part A:
Evaluate the type of conflict illustrated in this section of the case.
Assess alternatives and recommend a structural solution that the organization might implement that will reduce the conflict from role ambiguity.
Part B:Assess alternatives and recommend solution(s) that Peggy Fischer might implement or recommend to the board using the case discussion questions as a guide.
Conclusions must be well reasoned and supported with at least 5 citations from the course readings.The analysis should be a minimum of 750 words in APA format, excluding the title page and references.Be sure to follow the guidelines outlined in the grading rubric below.
Requirements:
Prepare a quality, substantive paper that addresses the objectives of the assignment and the expectations set forth in the grading rubric.
A minimum of 750 words.
Use APA format – Refer to APA Style and the Online Tutoring Center resources in Academic Resources for guidance on paper and citation formatting.
Conclusions must be well reasoned and supported with at least 5 citations from the course readings
All external cited sources must have been published within the 5 years.
I can not locate the actual article but I was able to find a paper that you could rewrite.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Negotiation & Conflict Resolution
0
Case Study 1
Negotiation & Conflict Resolution
Instructor Lisa Talbot
John Hernandez
5 April 2020
This study source was downloaded by 100000760502525 from CourseHero.com on 01-11-2024 17:57:33 GMT -06:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/63833967/Negotiations-Case-Study-1docx/
Negotiation & Conflict Resolution
1
Abstract
In the following paper we will discuss conflict and negotiation pertaining to the Midwestern
Contemporary Art museum. We will explore a power struggle between chairmen and board
members as well as alternative actions members should have taken to avoid hard conflict.
Additionally, the paper will discuss how the museum and board could have reobtained donations
from donors who kept the museum afloat.
This study source was downloaded by 100000760502525 from CourseHero.com on 01-11-2024 17:57:33 GMT -06:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/63833967/Negotiations-Case-Study-1docx/
Negotiation & Conflict Resolution
2
Introduction
A modern art museum in the Midwest has faced many issues over it’s years of operation
from personnel conflicts, expansion costs, and dedication to the organization. There are many
parties to consider when conflict arises. When looking for solutions to solve conflict there are
many approaches organizations can take but the forefront of the issues presented in this case
study could have been solved with teamwork.
Part A: Conflict between Schmitt and Smith
In this case, we find that conflict or a “sharp disagreement or opposition, as of interests,
ideas, etc” is the forefront of issues for the MCA museum (Lewicki, Saunders, & Barry, 2006).
The initial type of conflict was character or interpersonal conflicts between Smith and Schmitt.
Schmitt was aggressive and risky in his approaches while Smith was reserved and safe. This type
of conflict often leads to a struggle between the hierarchy in an organization. Personality
conflicts bring about personal pride and members do not like to back down. We see this occur
with Schmitt especially because of his previous decisions for the organization never being
questioned. When Smith questioned and challenged the decision-making process of Schmitt,
Schmitt became defensive and placed emphasis on the previous experiences he had with the
organization. This also challenged Smith to push members of the board to steer from the norm of
trusting Schmitt and begin to question the risks he would take.
Each party in this situation is dependent on the decisions of the other. As stated in the
book, interdependence will always have a strong effect on the outcome of any situation (Lewicki,
Saunders, & Barry, 2006). As directly stated, “Different project team members may need
different things, but they must work together for each to accomplish their goals” (Lewicki,
This study source was downloaded by 100000760502525 from CourseHero.com on 01-11-2024 17:57:33 GMT -06:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/63833967/Negotiations-Case-Study-1docx/
Negotiation & Conflict Resolution
3
Saunders, & Barry, 2006). In this specific case, each member should realize the other’s intent and
find a common ground as their goals for the organization are ultimately the same.
Part A: Alternative Measures for Conflict
Board and chairpersons didn’t usually question the developments. Schmitt’s plan was
risky and Smith’s was not supported by the board. Roles should have been more clearly written
for the board members and the chairpersons. An issue arose because the chairperson felt he was
being micromanaged by the board, when the board members thought they had a say in what
occurred. The board also should have had a discussion about the power struggle. They only laid
out two options instead of getting insight from the board as a whole and sitting down together to
resolve the conflict that ensued. This struggle could have been avoided with the use of
integrative negotiation, or the ability for two parties to ‘win’. Yet, missing out on asking other
board members for opinions prior to the decision violates the vital step ‘Ask Outsiders’ of
integrative negotiation (Lewicki, Saunders, & Barry, 2006). This step states, “Outsiders can
provide additional input to the list of alternatives, or they can help orchestrate the process and
keep the parties on track” (Lewicki, Saunders, & Barry, 2006). Additionally, there are always
options for conflict resolution that benefit both sides yet it was not even explored in the slightest
in this situation. The board allowed these two to have a power struggle and ultimately angered a
board member in the process.
Part B: Peggy Fischer Alternatives
Peggy Fischer needed to realize that the Smiths cared about art and the museum, not the
money and to be bombarded with unnecessary board internal issues. She needed to present to
them claimed value, as defined in Negotiations as “to do whatever is necessary to claim the
reward” (Lewicki, Saunders, & Barry, 2006). Placing emphasis on the value of art to this area
This study source was downloaded by 100000760502525 from CourseHero.com on 01-11-2024 17:57:33 GMT -06:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/63833967/Negotiations-Case-Study-1docx/
Negotiation & Conflict Resolution
4
would be her greatest strategic approach. A lawsuit would not be beneficial to the museum or the
relationship with not only the Smiths but other donors. Legal action is costly and unnecessary.
The Smiths were a very large part of this organization and they have a personal attachment to it.
She does not need to involve or bring in opinions of the board because of the personal biases that
would come from other members. Harsh or unnecessary remarks from the board could further
damage the needed relationship with the Smiths. The biggest impact Peggy could have on
receiving the Smith’s pledge is to help them remember the value of the art and museum and the
value the art gives them as well as how much value it provides to those who come as visitors to
the museum.
Conclusion
Organizations such as the Midwestern Contemporary Art museum will always run into
conflicts, whether it be between personnel or with other organizations. The key to overcoming
the conflicts is negotiation and the ability to properly add value to the product or suggestion
provided. Smith and Schmitt each provided value in their solutions, but did not bring the board in
to talk as a whole to ensure the best decision was made. When money is the root for conflict,
such as with Peggy, value being emphasized is the absolute key to negotiation.
This study source was downloaded by 100000760502525 from CourseHero.com on 01-11-2024 17:57:33 GMT -06:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/63833967/Negotiations-Case-Study-1docx/
Negotiation & Conflict Resolution
5
References
Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, & D. M., Barry, B., (2006). Negotiation. Boston, Mass: McGraw-Hill
Irwin.
This study source was downloaded by 100000760502525 from CourseHero.com on 01-11-2024 17:57:33 GMT -06:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/63833967/Negotiations-Case-Study-1docx/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
