Ohio State Pinto Case Study The Bean Counter and The Cowboy Discussion Use the attachment “Case Study 6.2 _the bean counter and the cowboy” , and answer th

Ohio State Pinto Case Study The Bean Counter and The Cowboy Discussion Use the attachment “Case Study 6.2 _the bean counter and the cowboy” , and answer the questions in case study 6.2 only. Note:1.Every paper typed in this course should be in APA formatting (title page, reference page, NO abstract page, in-text citations, running head, page numbers, Times New Roman 12 font, 1 inch margins, double-spacing, etc…).2.Your research papers should include only these types of sources, the textbook and all the scholarly case/articles(journal 1 and journal 2, attached along with the question). Do not use outside resources.3.References (this does not count toward the required paper length).Use only the attached material. Conflict Resolution Using Cognitive
Analysis Approach
Hashem Al-Tabtabai, Kuwait University, College of Engineering and Petroleum, Civil Engineering
Department, PO Box 5969, Safat 13060 Kuwait
Alex P. Alex, Kuwait University, College of Engineering and Petroleum, Civil Engineering
Department, PO Box 5969, Safat 13060 Kuwait
Ahmed Abou-alfotouh, Kuwait University, College of Engineering and Petroleum, Electrical
Engineering Department, PO Box 5969, Safat 13060 Kuwait
egaprojects require extensive coordination of various activities, each with different degrees of complexity and with different participants. The elaborateness of interactions often produces conflict situations at various stages of the
project. The importance of studying the origin and effect of conflict is critical for
project participants, because the actions they take in response to conflicting issues
can influence the management of both their projects and their organizations. Conflict develops because of various factors. These factors may be classified simply as
either “interpersonal” or “managerial.” Interpersonal differences can be attributed
to contrasting values, perceptions, and methods. Managerial-level differences can
arise from unbalanced views of project goals, lack of coordination, and inefficient
communication among the project participants. Conflict at the management level
may also arise from differences in practices advocated by respective organizations
under individual managerial units.
Some may consider the effect of conflict to be constructive; it can lead to new
ideas, new information, and novel ways of approaching problems. Simply put: conflict helps rectify “wrong” beliefs and values. Others may consider conflict to be destructive; it may erode organizational performance, create disorder among project
team members, and even cause delay in decision-making or result in schedule shifts
and cost overruns (Verma, 1996). The ability of project participants to manage conflict for the benefit of their organization is a significant factor in ensuring project success. Each conflict situation should be closely examined so that underlying causes can
be recognized in order to achieve resolution as swiftly and completely as possible.
Literature reviews in the field of conflict management (Singh & Vlatas, 1991)
have identified five conventional approaches to the resolution of conflict. These
approaches, with their limitations, are classified as follows:
■ Forcing: This is a typical win-lose type of resolution. The viewpoint of an individual is exercised at the expense of the other, thus creating an apparent removal
of any conflict between them. This approach brings feelings of resentment and
causes deterioration in the relationship between the persons in conflict.
■ Withdrawal: In this approach, the individuals withdraw from the conflict issues. In actuality, the conflicting issues are avoided. This type of resolution is not
effective because the approach does not eliminate the conflict.
M
▼
Abstract
Within the field of project management, research
in the subject of conflict analysis and resolution
has received considerable attention. This paper
presents the application of cognitive analysis,
based on the workings of “human judgment
theorists,” to the resolution of representative
conflict situations. The employed conflictresolution approach presents cognitive differences
between parties as a primary source of conflict.
However, it also presents feedback that provides
analysis of each individual’s judgment and
comparisons with his or her counterpart’s
judgment. This feedback, termed “cognitive
feedback,” is used as a way to give insight to
people in conflict, providing them an opportunity
to resolve their conflicts acceptably. The objective
of this paper is to establish a systematic
methodology for analyzing and resolving conflict.
An actual case study of conflict resolution between
union and management personnel at a
petrochemical plant in Kuwait is used to illustrate
the methodology. Both self-understanding and the
understanding of one’s counterpart were found to
be generally poor before receiving cognitive
feedback. The use of cognitive feedback for both
groups proved feasible and helped reduce conflict.
Keywords: conflict resolution; negotiation;
human judgment; cognitive analysis
©2001 by the Project Management Institute
2001, Vol. 32, No. 2, 4–16
8756–9728/01/$5.00 per article + $0.50 per page
4
Project Management Journal
March 2001
■ Smoothing: The emphasis in smoothing is to focus on
similarities rather than on differences over issues. Like withdrawal, smoothing may not address the real issues; thus, the
differences remain under the surface.
■ Compromising: Bargaining and searching for a solution is
the basis of this approach. But a compromise is often attained at the expense of optimum results. This approach
often involves third-party intervention, negotiation, and even
voting. This resolution is influenced by the relative strength
of the parties.
■ Confrontation: This approach involves a rational problemsolving approach. Disputing parties solve their differences by
first focusing on the issues, then looking at alternative approaches, and finally selecting the best alternative. This
method can be time-consuming and is frequently inappropriate for most communication.
These traditional approaches were developed three
decades ago. Traditional models consider conflict between
individuals to reflect differing views of the “What’s in it for
me?” attitude prevalent during this period (Al-Sedairy,
1994). At some point in history, conflict was considered as
universally destructive, reflecting the belief that disagreement
universally bred contempt. Furthermore, these approaches
failed to examine the psychological aspects of conflict, and
for that reason have not helped the individuals engaged in
conflict to resolve the value differences arising out of the
conflict situation. Finally, none of these traditional methods
advocate any methodology for modeling the conflict in
terms of its intensity and magnitude (Verma, 1996).
Judgmental analysis studies by human judgment theorists
have argued that cognitive differences between persons are
the basis of conflict among individuals (Blake, Hammond, &
Meyer, 1975; Hammond, McClelland, & Mumpower, 1980).
Their research has produced several theories that study interpersonal conflict and methods to resolve it. These theories
differ with the earlier-mentioned traditional conflict-resolution theories for three reasons. First, traditional (motivational) theories have not sufficiently enhanced the ability to
analyze, manage, or reduce human conflict. Second, traditional theories require us to look for self-serving behavior in
the other person whenever conflict occurs—a process that is
divisive and aggravates conflict. Third, preoccupation with
differential gain as the prime cause of conflict diverts our attention from other possible causes.
The objective of this paper is to introduce a systematic
methodology for analyzing and resolving conflict situations,
based on the works of human judgment researchers. The
paper proposes an alternate conflict-resolution strategy,
which argues that cognitive differences among individuals are
capable of producing conflict. The proposed strategy, based
on the social judgment theory (SJT), argues that the nature of
human judgment is such that it provides a prime source of
conflict and that many, although not all, disagreements flow
from the exercise of human judgment. Consequently, even if
self-serving motives are eliminated, interpersonal conflict
will persist.
June 2001
Need for Clarification of the Human Judgment
Process
Research done by human judgment theorists (Brehmer, 1988;
Einhorn & Hogarth, 1981; Hammond, Stewart, Brehmer, &
Steinman, 1975) has indicated that, unaided, a person faces
difficulties in clarifying his or her judgment for the following
reasons.
Human judgment is a covert process. It is difficult for an individual to accurately describe his or her judgment process.
Introspection and observation of the judgment process and
guessing at the reasons for them are the only means of uncovering or explaining judgments. Subjective reports of one’s
judgment process and the uninformed nature of guessing
often lead to inaccuracy.
Inaccurate Reporting. People often are unable to accurately
describe the principle by which they organize the data to
reach a judgment. Most explanations are incomplete at best
and misleading at worst. This is due to the variable nature of
subjective reporting on the process of judgment.
Inconsistency. Human judgment is neither a fully analytical nor an entirely controlled process. Even when people
do their best to be consistent, in identical situations they
will not necessarily draw identical judgments.
Based upon these statements, human judgment theorists
have argued that judgment does not always accomplish what is
required of it and that many, although not all, disagreements
flow from the exercise of human judgment. Human judgment
theorists, however, argue that methods can be applied to aid
decision-makers in making required judgments as well as improving their judgments in overcoming conflict situations.
Cognitive Analysis Approach as a Conflict-Resolution
Technique
The conflict-resolution technique presented here is based
on the assumption that human judgment is a cognitive
process (Hammond et al., 1975; Stewart, 1988). In this
process, an individual draws a conclusion or makes a judgment (Ys) about a distal or uncertain event (Ye) [depth variable]. The distal event is not visible; it is drawn from data or
cues (x , x … x ) [surface variable] that can be perceived or
1
2
n
that represent information available for making a judgment.
Moreover, individuals do not have access to the distal variable about which they intend to make a judgment, but have
access only to the surface variable upon which to base their
inferences. This ambiguity between the depth variable and
the surface variable [cues] explains the cognitive differences
among persons who arrive at a conclusion (i.e., the difference in Ys for each individual). This cognitive difference can
be inferred to be the major source of conflict between individuals making differing conclusions about a common task.
This approach proposes to resolve the difference that is
appearing in the cognitive system, rather than simply concentrating on the difference in the outcome Ys (its difference
among individuals in conflict). In this technique, the cues
used and the importance attributed to each cue are analyzed
Project Management Journal
5
Step 1:
Identify the Major Domain and
Issues of Conflict
Step 2:
Generate Conflict Profiles
Step 3:
Exercise of Judgment
Step 4:
Judgmental Parameters
Step 5:
Communicating Cognitive
Feedback
Step 6:
Negotiation Among Conflicting
Parties
Compromise
No
Yes
Stop
Figure 1. Steps of the Conflict-Resolution Process
to perceive the real conflict that is inherent in the judgments
among individuals.
A Systematic Methodology to Conflict Resolution
The workings of human judgment theorists can be expanded
to construct a systematic approach to the resolution of conflict.
6
This proposed methodology involves identifying and measuring the cues, the distal variable, and the judgments, and
finding the relationships among these variables. The following
steps (illustrated in Figure 1) explain this methodology.
Step 1: Identification of the Conflict Domain. Acknowledgment and establishment of the conflict situation is
the first step in any conflict-resolution method. The domain
Project Management Journal
June 2001
to be resolved is identified and recognized by all parties in
conflict. Conflicting parties are requested to identify all the
main issues or cues that caused the conflict. These factors
are then sorted and categorized, resulting in a maximum of
eight cues. Large numbers of cues may lead to inaccurate
and inconsistent judgment on the individuals’ parts. This
step should ensure that the parties in conflict are informed
about the presence of conflict and its scope, and will not retain ambiguity about the conflict domain.
Step 2: Generation of Conflict Cases. Hypothetical
case profiles are developed, which consist of a mix of cue
values representing different conflict situations. The cues are
given random values that adequately describe a set of possible conflict situations.
Step 3: Exercise of Judgment. The concerned individuals indicate their judgments by rating several profiles on a
numerical scale. The practice of judgment may take into
consideration two sets of meetings, with the second set containing a number of cases similar to those shown in the
first. The objective is to test the reliability of an individual
judgment in more than one instance.
Step 4: Analysis of the Results. If the judgments a
person has made and the information (cues) upon which
these judgments were based are known, then a mathematical representation can be developed that relates the judgment to the information. An additive nonlinear polynomial
model formed by adding squared terms to the standard
linear regression equation (as follows) is adopted to analyze
the judgment of conflicting parties.
J = a + b1x1 + b2x2 + … + bnxn + b1+n x12 +
b2+n x22 + … + bn+n xn2
[1]
J is the judgment, xn is the nth cue variable, bn is the regression coefficient for the cue n, and b1+n is the regression
coefficient for the square value of cue n. The selection of this
additive curvilinear model is based on the assumption that
the contribution of any cue is independent of the values of
the other cues. The mathematical regression analysis of judgments helps to study the characteristics of each individual by
externalizing several judgmental parameters (as follows),
which are used to resolve the conflict situation.
■ Relative weight. Sources of disagreement between individuals could be due to the different weights they attach to various aspects of the conflict situation. The weights are based
on the standard regression weights adjusted total to 100.
The importance given to each cue by the individuals indicates the weight attributed by each judge on each cue to the
judgment task.
■ Function form. The relationship between the cues and the
judgments can be graphically represented as function forms.
A positive linear function indicates that the judgment value
increases as the cue value increases, while a negative linear
function form indicates that the judgments of desirability
are inversely related to that cue.
■ Consistency. The consistency value represents the efficiency of the model in representing the individual deci-
June 2001
sions. The judgmental models can be tested for consistency
in terms of the correspondence between the statistical
model and the actual predictions, and the amount of judgment variance accounted for by the judgment model by
measuring the multiple correlation coefficient (R) and the
squared multiple correlation (R2), respectively.
■ Reliability. Another measure of consistency is the reliability measure (the product-moment coefficient). This measure indicates the extent to which a person makes similar
judgments when the same information is presented on different occasions.
■ Agreement. The correlation between a set of judgments
made by two parties for the same case reflects the overall
agreement between them. The value of ra in the lens model,
which indicates the degree to which the judgment was correct, will be an index of overall agreement between the two
conflicting parties, which ranges from high degree of disagreement (ra = –1.0) to high degree of agreement (ra = +1.0).
Step 5: Communication of the Judgment Differences
(Cognitive Feedback). Once the judgment parameters are
externalized and analyzed for each of the conflicting parties,
a comparison between individuals and their counterparts in
conflict can be performed. Comparison of weights and
function forms will externalize the major source of conflict
among individuals, provided the individuals make the judgments consistently. All the conflicting parties are provided
with their own judgment characteristics, along with those of
their counterparts, and the individuals are encouraged to
understand the viewpoint of the other and to reduce, if not
eliminate, the conflict that exists among them. Once the
judgment differences are communicated, the individuals are
encouraged to revise their decisions on the conflict issue by
reducing the cognitive difference rather than by discussing
only the difference in outcomes.
Step 6: Negotiation Among Conflicting Parties. In
the negotiation phase, each individual in conflict attempts
to reach an agreement on the evaluation of cases that was
given to them in previous steps. Evaluation of the acceptability of all cases is requested in order to ascertain the degree to which mutual judgment policies can be developed,
based on the provision of the cognitive feedback in comparison to conventional verbal procedures.
An Example: Union vs. Management Negotiation
The proposed conflict-resolution strategy could be applied
to resolve the conflict that can exist between a labor union
and the company management, based on the assumption
that much of the above-mentioned argument is true. What
is at issue is the extent to which the externalization of the
parameters of the judgment process can be demonstrated to
be of potential value, not only to union-management negotiators, but also to specialists in conflict resolution. A conflict situation between the management and labor union of
the Kuwait National Petroleum Company (KNPC) was used
to apply the proposed resolution method. The situation was
Project Management Journal
7
(1) Number of Promotion Tests
None
Pass Interview
Pass Exam
Pass Interview & Exam
Outside the Dept.
Through a
Committee
Outside the Dept.
Without Their
Opinion
(2) Selection of Section Head
Outside the Dept.
With Section
Consult.
Inside the Dept.
(3) Covering Period in Grade 7B
5
7.5
10
12.5
15
(years)
(4) Acting Period in Grades 8 & 10
3
6
9
12
15
18
(months)
Acceptability of Contracts
1
2
3
5
4
Strongly
Recommend to
Accept
6
7
Strongly
Recommend
to Reject
Figure 2. A Sample Profile
sufficiently controversial (70 days of strike had not relieved
the tension) and recent enough that the issues were still
clear to the negotiators.
Step 1: Identifying Major Issues of Conflict. Two of
the five management negotiators and two of the five union
negotiators who took part in the negotiation process agreed
to participate in the proposed conflict-resolution experiment. The four key issues under negotiation between the
labor union and management representatives, are as follows:
Issue 1: Promotion tests. The company conducted a variety
of certification and evaluation tests for promotion against
the wishes of the labor union, which wanted the promotions to be based on seniority.
Issue 2: Assignment of departments’ managers. The company wished to assign the department manager from outside that department, while the union preferred to have the
manager assigned from within the department.
Issue 3: Required years in service in Grade 7B. The number
of years necessary to serve in the Grade 7B level at KNPC in
order to be promoted to Grade 8 was an additional factor
under negotiation.
Issue 4: Required period in Grades 8 and 10. The duration,
in terms of months, that a worker should serve in Grades 8
and 10 was another factor under negotiation.
Time was spent with one management negotiator and
one union negotiator to discuss the issues involved in conflict in order to make certain that no issue of importance
was omitted.
Step 2: Generation of Hypothetical Profiles. Sample
negotiation contract scenarios were created, each repre-
8
senting a different combination of values for the four issue…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment