| Course | MLDR 6175 Managing, Mediating, and Resolving Conflict |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 8 |
| Paper type | Peer response |
| Length | About 380 words, 3 pages |
| Format | Discussion reply, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | MS in Leadership |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MLDR 6175 Week 8
Week 8 Discussion: Responses to Classmates on the Theater Case
Answering a Classmate Who Backed Development: Stating Development's Case Fairly First, Then Testing the Classmate's Summary Against the Production Interest It Leaves Unmet
Reply to Kendra
Kendra, you made the strongest case I have read for development's position. The gala is how Lantern Hall keeps an $85,000 sponsor, and the development director's concern is not the date for its own sake but the sponsor's renewal and the board chair's relationship with the sponsor's president. You saw that more clearly than I did in my own post.
Where I think your proposal falls short is on one production interest it does not mention: crew safety during a compressed technical week. Your post describes production's stance as "a preference to keep the stage clear." I suspect the production manager would read that phrase differently. For him, it is not a preference but a safety judgment about moving scenery during the riskiest part of the schedule. Fisher et al. (2011) note that interests a party regards as basic, such as security, are the hardest to trade, and safety may be one of those for him.
Here is a small test: could the production manager sign your summary of production's position as written? If not, how would your proposal change if crew safety carried the same weight as the sponsor renewal? I ask because I had to run the same test on my own post and failed it the first time.
Reply to Andre
Andre, you sided with production, as I did, and argued that the managing director should rule for the technical week. Before agreeing, I tried restating development's case as the development director would: the sponsor's name on the proscenium on a main stage night is what the credit union is paying for, and no lobby event replaces it. Your proposal moves the gala to the studio, which meets production's interests fully and development's hardly at all. Ury et al. (1988) argue that settlements reached by power tend to leave the losing side looking for the next fight. Could the development director sign your summary of her position? Thompson (2020) suggests asking what the other side would need to say yes; I wonder whether a preview performance at the final dress would give development a stronger event than the original gala.
References
Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in (3rd ed.). Penguin Books.
Thompson, L. L. (2020). The mind and heart of the negotiator (7th ed.). Pearson.
Ury, W. L., Brett, J. M., & Goldberg, S. B. (1988). Getting disputes resolved: Designing systems to cut the costs of conflict. Jossey-Bass.
The Walden MLDR 6175 Week 8 instructions
In Week 8 you answer classmates who sided with the other department in the shared case. Begin with the side the classmate chose, restating it in terms that side would accept, and credit what the classmate saw. Then name one interest of the other party that the classmate's proposal leaves out, quoting the phrase in their post that describes that party. Offer a simple test: could that party sign the classmate's summary of their position? Close with a question about how the proposal would change if the missing interest were weighted equally. Keep replies brief, and bring in a source only for a claim that goes past the facts of the case.
How this MLDR 6175 Week 8 example is built
The first reply credits the classmate's account of development's interest in the sponsor's renewal, then names crew safety as the production interest her proposal misses and quotes her phrase "a preference to keep the stage clear," citing Fisher and colleagues on basic interests. It asks whether the production manager could sign her summary. The second reply, to a classmate who backed production, restates development's case, notes his studio proposal meets development's interests hardly at all, cites Ury, Brett and Goldberg on power-based settlements and Thompson on asking what the other side needs, and suggests a preview at the final dress. Both replies stay under about two hundred words, which suits a busy discussion thread.
Where the marks sit in the MLDR 6175 Week 8 rubric
Peer responses in this course earn credit for fairness to the other side. Restating the classmate's chosen side in terms that side would endorse is weighted heavily. Naming a specific interest the classmate omitted, and quoting their wording, shows close reading. The sign-off test gives the classmate a concrete way to check their own summary. A closing question that invites revision rather than defense keeps the thread productive. Replies that argue for the writer's own side, paraphrase the classmate unfairly or cite sources without a claim to support tend to receive lower marks. Brevity matters, since long replies are rarely read in full. Applying the same test to classmates on both sides shows the writer is checking fairness, not defending a team.
Common MLDR 6175 Week 8 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Start your reply with the strongest version of the side your classmate chose, written so that side's leader would agree with it. Credit the classmate for what they saw. Then find one interest of the other party that their proposal does not address, and quote the words they used to describe that party. Ask whether that party would sign the description. End with one question. Many replies spend their first lines restating the writer's own view, which signals that the reply is a rebuttal. Others criticize the classmate's conclusion without engaging their reasoning. If you find it hard to state the other side fairly, our writers can help you draft that opening.
Get a MLDR 6175 Week 8 example written to your instructions
Paste the classmate's post together with the Week 8 prompt and whatever reply rubric the section uses, and say which party your own initial post supported; the reply returns within 24 to 48 hours, free on your first request. A thread where you and the classmate disagree about more than one party works too, since the reply picks the difference that matters most.
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 7: Difficult Conversation Script
- MLDR 6175 Week 9: Working Agreement Draft
- MLDR 6175 Week 10: Mediator Reflection
- MLDR 6175 Week 11: Final Conflict Analysis
- MLDR 6905 Week 8: Capstone Progress Post
- MLDR 6010 Week 8: Handbook Policy Check
MLDR 6175 Week 8 questions, answered
Where can I find a free MLDR 6175 Week 8 sample paper?
Both peer replies are printed in full below and are free to read.
How does the MLDR 6175 Week 8 reply begin?
By restating development's case and the sponsor renewal behind it in terms the development director would accept.
Which interest does the classmate's proposal miss?
Crew safety during a compressed technical week.
What test does the reply offer?
Whether the production manager could sign the classmate's summary of production's position as written.
What does the second reply suggest?
A preview performance at the final dress, which might give development a stronger event than the original gala.