| Course | MGMT 4400 Organizational Behavior and Management |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 6 |
| Paper type | Conflict brief |
| Length | About 610 words, 4 pages |
| Format | Memo, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | BS in Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MGMT 4400 Week 6
Memorandum
To: General Manager, Overland Park bistro
From: Shift Lead
Date: October 6, 2026
Re: The weekend conflict between servers and the kitchen over sold-out dishes
The Pattern
On Friday and Saturday nights between about seven and nine, servers at our bistro, the newest of Brennan Family Kitchens' four restaurants, keep ringing in dishes the kitchen has already run out of. The kitchen sends the ticket back, the server has to return to the table and the guest chooses again, sometimes after a long wait. Last month we averaged eleven bounced tickets on each busy night, against one or two on weeknights. Each side blames the other: cooks say servers do not listen when items are called out, and servers say the kitchen never tells them in time. This brief argues that both sides are describing a coordination problem built into how the work flows, not a problem of attention.
Thompson's Three Types
Thompson (1967) distinguished three kinds of interdependence between units, each requiring a different way of coordinating. Under pooled interdependence, units share a common resource but do not pass work to each other, and standard rules are enough. Under sequential interdependence, what one unit finishes is what the next unit starts with, and output becomes another's input, in one direction, and schedules and plans coordinate the flow. Under reciprocal interdependence, work passes back and forth, each unit's output becoming the other's input, and coordination requires mutual adjustment: continuous, direct communication as conditions change.
Information Flowing Backward
Most of the time, servers and the kitchen are sequentially interdependent: servers send orders, the kitchen sends food. Our procedures are built for that one-way flow. But availability information has to flow the other way, from the kitchen back to the floor, and it changes minute by minute on a busy night as items run out. That makes this part of the relationship reciprocal. Right now, the only mechanism for sending availability back is the expeditor calling out "eighty-six the short ribs" across a loud kitchen, which servers in the dining room often do not hear. A sequential coordination tool is being used for a reciprocal task, and Thompson's framework predicts exactly the breakdowns we see.
Why Blaming Attention Will Not Work
If the problem were attention, reminders and discipline would fix it, and they have not: the kitchen manager has asked servers to "listen up" at every pre-shift meeting since July. The bounced tickets cluster at the busiest times, when the most items run out and the dining room is loudest, which is when a call-out system fails regardless of anyone's attention. Jehn (1995) found that conflict about tasks can turn into conflict about relationships when it persists unresolved, and the comments now passing between cooks and servers suggest that is beginning to happen.
What Mutual Adjustment Would Look Like
Reciprocal interdependence calls for direct, continuous communication, so the remedy is a mechanism that sends availability to servers the moment it changes. Our point-of-sale system can mark an item as unavailable so it cannot be rung in; the expeditor would update it as items run out. A small whiteboard at the server station, updated at the same time, would back it up. On the busiest nights, a designated server could check in with the expeditor every fifteen minutes. These steps cost almost nothing and match the coordination method to the type of interdependence.
How We Will Know
Bounced tickets per busy night should fall from about eleven toward the weeknight level within a month. If they do not, the problem may lie elsewhere, for example in servers ringing orders in large batches, and we should look again (Robbins & Judge, 2019).
References
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256-282. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393638
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2019). Organizational behavior (18th ed.). Pearson.
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. McGraw-Hill.
MGMT 4400 Week 6 instructions, in plain terms
Week 6 asks you to analyze a recurring conflict with a concept that predicts it. Describe the conflict as a pattern with a time and place, since a concept needs something specific to predict. Define the concept fully, with the type of coordination each form requires. Identify where the current way of working uses the wrong coordination method for the type of interdependence involved. Explain why blaming individuals has not worked. Recommend a remedy that matches the method to the type, and name the sign that would show it working. Expect to write two or three pages, set out as a memo. Count the incidents if you can.
How this MGMT 4400 Week 6 example is built
The brief opens with the bounced-ticket pattern and the blame on both sides. A section defines Thompson's three types and their coordination methods. A section identifies availability information as the reciprocal step handled by a sequential tool. A section explains why reminders failed and cites Jehn on conflict spreading from tasks to relationships. A remedy section proposes system flags, a whiteboard and fifteen-minute check-ins. A closing section sets a target for bounced tickets and names an alternative cause to examine if the target is missed, citing Robbins and Judge. The remedy section names three low-cost steps and who would carry each out. The closing paragraph says what to examine if the numbers do not improve.
MGMT 4400 Week 6 rubric: what earns full marks
Conflict briefs are graded on whether the concept genuinely explains the pattern. A conflict described with time, place and frequency earns credit. The concept should be defined completely, including the coordination each type requires. The key insight, a mismatch between the type of interdependence and the coordination method, is weighted heavily. Explaining why blame has failed strengthens the argument. The remedy should follow from the concept and be practical. A measurable check on results shows rigor. Briefs that describe a personality clash, or recommend better communication in general, earn fewer marks. Graders reward briefs that treat both sides of the conflict fairly. A measurable target closes the brief well.
MGMT 4400 Week 6 help from the desk
Write down when and where the conflict happens and how often, using any records you have. Then map how work and information flow between the two sides: does it go one way, both ways or neither? Look for any step where information must flow backward or change quickly, and check what mechanism currently carries it. If the mechanism is a one-way tool for a two-way flow, you have found the mismatch. Recommend a mechanism that carries the flow directly. Set a number to watch. Students often describe the people rather than the flow of work. If you need help mapping interdependence, describe how work passes between the groups. Map the flow before judging the people.
Get a MGMT 4400 Week 6 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 6 prompt and rubric along with a short account of a recurring breakdown between two groups where you work. A conflict brief comes back in 24 to 48 hours, first one free, with the concept turned into a prediction and tested. Ticket counts shown are placeholders unless you provide real ones.
More MGMT 4400 papers and BS in Business Administration samples
- MGMT 4400 Week 1: Levels of Analysis Discussion Post
- MGMT 4400 Week 2: Attribution Perception Memo
- MGMT 4400 Week 3: Self-Determination Analysis
- MGMT 4400 Week 4: Organizational Justice Case Paper
- MGMT 4400 Week 5: Real Team Analysis Paper
- MGMT 4400 Week 7: Leadership Peer Reply Set
- MGMT 4400 Week 8: Social Proof Influence Memo
- MGMT 4400 Week 9: Organizational Culture Write-Up
- MGMT 4400 Week 10: Change Resistance Proposal
- MGMT 4400 Week 11: Final Synthesis Paper
- MRKT 3001 Week 6: Product Pricing Memo
- HRMG 4203 Week 6: Evidence Weighing Matrix
- HRMG 4202 Week 6: Training Session Design
- HRMG 4201 Week 6: Paired Development Program Case
MGMT 4400 Week 6 questions, answered
Where can I find a free MGMT 4400 Week 6 sample paper?
The interdependence conflict brief can be read in full here for free.
What conflict does the MGMT 4400 Week 6 brief analyze?
Servers repeatedly selling dishes the kitchen has run out of on busy weekend nights.
What type of interdependence is involved?
Mostly sequential, but availability information must flow back from the kitchen, which makes that step reciprocal.
Why have reminders not worked?
The call-out system fails at the busiest, loudest times regardless of anyone's attention.
What does the brief recommend?
Marking sold-out items unavailable in the ordering system, a server-station whiteboard and regular check-ins with the expeditor.