| Course | MLDR 6175 Managing, Mediating, and Resolving Conflict |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 7 |
| Paper type | Difficult conversation script |
| Length | About 880 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | MS in Leadership |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MLDR 6175 Week 7
The Conversation About the Remark: A Two-Column Script Between a Theater's Production Manager and Development Director, Each Line Labeled by Which of Three Conversations It Is Conducting
Student Name
Walden University
MLDR 6175: Managing, Mediating, and Resolving Conflict
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
The Conversation About the Remark: A Two-Column Script Between a Theater's Production Manager and Development Director, Each Line Labeled by Which of Three Conversations It Is Conducting
Purpose of the Script
After the August 26 mediation, Owen Brandt, production manager at Lantern Hall Theater Company, and Celia Marsh, development director, agreed to meet alone to talk about what neither had raised in the session: the remarks each made about the other at the August 4 staff meeting. This script prepares Owen's side of that conversation. Stone et al. (2010) treat a hard conversation as three layered exchanges: one over the facts and who meant what, one over emotions and one over what the episode implies about each person's sense of self. Each line below is labeled by the conversation it is conducting, so Owen can see when he has moved from one to another.
Script
Table 1
Conversation Script, With Each Line Labeled
| Speaker | Line | Conversation | |
|---|---|---|
| Owen | Thanks for meeting. The way I'd describe it, if someone else were telling it, is that we both said something at the staff meeting that we probably wouldn't say again, and we haven't talked about it since. | What happened (third story) | |
| Celia | That's fair. | | |
| Owen | I compared your department's bookings to renting out a hall. I meant that the gala was booked without asking us. But I said it in front of the whole staff, and it came out as a judgment about your department. | What happened (his contribution) | |
| Celia | It did. And I said you'd never thought about where the money comes from, which isn't true either. | What happened (her contribution) | |
| Owen | I'll be honest, I was embarrassed afterward. Not just about what I said, but about how it looked for the department. | Feelings | |
| Celia | I felt ambushed. I'd promised the sponsor's president a tour of the set during tech week. When you said no events at all, I was the one who'd have to call him. | Feelings | |
| Owen | I didn't know about the tour. That changes how I read your emails. | What happened (new information) | |
| Celia | I didn't say it in the emails because I thought it would sound like I'd overstepped. | Identity | |
| Owen | Here's what I think was really going on for me. My job, the way I see it, is to keep the crew safe. When I hear about anything during tech week, the crew is the first thing I think of. | Identity | |
| Celia | And mine is to keep the lights on. When someone says no to a sponsor, I hear that the company's funding doesn't matter. | Identity | |
| Owen | So we both heard the other say the thing we care about doesn't count. | Identity (recognition) | |
| Celia | Yes. That's exactly it. | | |
| Owen | Can we agree that next time something clashes, we talk before it goes to email? | What happened (forward) | |
Composite theater. The script prepares one side; Celia's lines are Owen's best estimate of what she might say.
Commentary on Three Choices
The opening line is a third story. Stone et al. (2010) suggest beginning a difficult conversation with a description of the disagreement that a neutral observer would accept, rather than with either party's version. Owen's first line describes the situation in terms Celia can agree to, which is why her first response is "That's fair." Had he opened with his own account, "I was frustrated because the gala was booked without asking," she would likely have corrected him before he finished.
Each person names their own contribution before discussing the other's. The what-happened conversation tends to stall when each party argues about who is to blame. Stone et al. (2010) recommend shifting from blame to contribution, asking what each person did that helped create the situation. Owen names his remark and its effect first, which makes it easier for Celia to name hers. The script also shows a moment when new information, the sponsor tour, changes how Owen reads earlier events; that moment is only possible because the conversation is about what happened rather than who was wrong.
The identity lines surface the stakes beneath the dispute. Owen sees himself as the person who protects the crew; Celia sees herself as the person who keeps the company funded. Each heard the other's position as a statement that their own role did not matter. Galinsky et al. (2008) found that perspective taking helps negotiators find agreements, and the identity conversation is where that perspective taking happens most directly. Once both identities are named, the line "we both heard the other say the thing we care about doesn't count" becomes possible, and with it the forward agreement.
What the Script Does Not Do
The script does not settle the October dates or the booking process; those were addressed in the mediation and will be written into the working agreement. Nor does it guarantee Celia's responses. Its purpose is to help Owen hold his side of the conversation in all three layers, so that if Celia says something different, he can recognize which conversation she has moved to and follow her there. Weingart et al. (2015) describe how the directness and intensity of conflict expression shape how the other party responds; the script keeps Owen's expression direct but low in intensity throughout.
References
Galinsky, A. D., Maddux, W. W., Gilin, D., & White, J. B. (2008). Why it pays to get inside the head of your opponent: The differential effects of perspective taking and empathy in negotiations. Psychological Science, 19(4), 378-384. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02096.x
Stone, D., Patton, B., & Heen, S. (2010). Difficult conversations: How to discuss what matters most (10th anniversary ed.). Penguin Books.
Weingart, L. R., Behfar, K. J., Bendersky, C., Todorova, G., & Jehn, K. A. (2015). The directness and oppositional intensity of conflict expression. Academy of Management Review, 40(2), 235-262. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0124
MLDR 6175 Week 7 instructions, in plain terms
Week 7 asks you to script a difficult conversation from your case. Write it as dialogue, and label each line by the layer of conversation it belongs to: what happened, feelings or identity. Open with a description of the disagreement that a neutral observer would accept. Have each speaker name their own contribution before discussing the other's. Give feelings their own lines, in plain words. Bring out what the situation means to each person's sense of who they are. Follow the script with commentary explaining your main choices and linking them to the model, and note what the script cannot control, such as how the other person will respond. Keep the other person's lines plausible rather than cooperative.
Inside the MLDR 6175 Week 7 example
The paper opens by explaining that the script prepares one side of a private conversation after the mediation, citing Stone and colleagues. A table carries the dialogue, with each line labeled. The production manager opens with a third story, names his remark and its effect, admits embarrassment, learns about the sponsor tour and names his identity as the crew's protector; the development director names her remark, her sense of being ambushed and her identity as the one who funds the company. Commentary explains the third-story opening, contribution before blame and the identity layer, citing Galinsky and colleagues. A closing section cites Weingart and colleagues. Celia's lines are marked as the production manager's best estimate, not a prediction.
Where the marks sit in the MLDR 6175 Week 7 rubric
Conversation scripts earn credit for showing the three layers working together. An opening that both parties would accept as fair is weighted heavily. Lines in which each speaker names their own contribution show the shift from blame to contribution. Feelings stated plainly, without accusation, show emotional skill. Identity stakes made explicit demonstrate depth. Labels that match the lines accurately show command of the model. Commentary tied to the reading explains choices rather than repeating the script. Scripts in which one person does all the acknowledging, or in which feelings appear only as accusations, tend to score lower. Commentary that names what the script cannot control, such as the other person's real replies, shows realism.
MLDR 6175 Week 7 help from the desk
Begin by writing a single sentence that describes the disagreement in a way both people would nod at; that becomes your opening. Then write what you did that contributed, before you write anything about what they did. Add a line for how you felt and a line for how you think they felt. Finally, ask what the conflict threatened in each person's sense of themselves, and write that down too. Many scripts stay entirely in the what-happened layer and never reach feelings or identity, which is where these conversations usually turn. Others script the other person as agreeing at every step. If labeling lines feels confusing, our writers can review a few with you.
Get a MLDR 6175 Week 7 example written to your instructions
Starting from the Week 7 prompt, the rubric and a short account of the exchange that needs to happen, a two-column script with commentary arrives inside 24 to 48 hours, and a first request costs nothing. Whether you are one of the two speakers or advising them changes the voice of the opening, so it is worth stating.
More MLDR 6175 papers and MS in Leadership samples
- MLDR 6175 Week 1: Conflict Types Discussion Post
- MLDR 6175 Week 2: Conflict Case Description
- MLDR 6175 Week 3: Positions and Interests Analysis
- MLDR 6175 Week 4: Conflict Style Diagnosis
- MLDR 6175 Week 5: Negotiation Prep Plan
- MLDR 6175 Week 6: Transformative Mediation Plan
- MLDR 6175 Week 8: Peer Response on the Theater Case
- MLDR 6175 Week 9: Working Agreement Draft
- MLDR 6175 Week 10: Mediator Reflection
- MLDR 6175 Week 11: Final Conflict Analysis
- MLDR 6905 Week 7: Change Measurement Plan
- MLDR 6010 Week 7: Difficult Conduct Case Analysis
MLDR 6175 Week 7 questions, answered
Where can I find a free MLDR 6175 Week 7 sample paper?
The two-column conversation script and commentary are free to read below.
Which model does the MLDR 6175 Week 7 script follow?
Stone, Patton and Heen's three conversations: what happened, feelings and identity.
How does the script open?
With a third story, a description of the disagreement a neutral observer would accept.
What new information changes the conversation?
The development director had promised the sponsor's president a tour during tech week.
What identities are at stake?
One head sees himself as protecting the crew; the other sees herself as keeping the company funded.