WMBA 6501 Week 2 Conflict Style Diagnosis Example

Dominating Meets Obliging at the Line-Side Bins: Diagnosing a Stockout Dispute Between a Fastener Distributor's Inventory Coordinator and a Trailer Plant Supervisor, and What the Pairing Produces

Student Name

Walden University

WMBA 6501: Conflict Management and Negotiation

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

Dominating Meets Obliging at the Line-Side Bins: Diagnosing a Stockout Dispute Between a Fastener Distributor's Inventory Coordinator and a Trailer Plant Supervisor, and What the Pairing Produces

The Case

Linden Fastener Supply, an invented western Michigan fastener distributor, runs a vendor-managed inventory program at a trailer manufacturer's assembly plant. Linden owns the stock of bolts, nuts and washers in more than 300 bins along the assembly line, counts the bins twice a week and refills them before they run out. In March the line ran out of a 5/8-inch structural bolt twice, stopping one station for about forty minutes each time.

The case for this week presents three exchanges between Linden's inventory coordinator, A. S., and the plant's line supervisor, D. K. In the first, by phone after the first stockout, D. K. says: "Your bins were empty. That's the whole job. If it happens again we'll look at another supplier." A. S. replies: "You're right, that's on us. I'll raise the safety stock on that bolt and check it every day." In the second, after the second stockout, D. K. writes in an email copied to Linden's sales manager: "Twice in one month. I don't want explanations. I want full bins." A. S. answers within the hour: "Understood. I've doubled the minimum on all 5/8 bolts and will come in daily until further notice." In the third, a week later, A. S. mentions to a colleague that the plant switched two trailer models to a heavier frame in February, which uses more of that bolt, and that nobody told Linden. She adds, "It's not worth raising. He'll just say it's our job to notice."

The Model

Rahim (1983) arranged five styles of handling interpersonal conflict along two dimensions: how much a person cares about getting what he or she wants, and how much about what the other side wants. Integrating is high on both dimensions. Obliging gives up one's own aims to satisfy the other side, while dominating does the reverse. Avoiding is low on both, and compromising sits in the middle of each. Later confirmatory work found that the five styles could be measured as distinct factors across different groups of respondents (Rahim & Magner, 1995), which supports treating them as separate patterns rather than points on a single scale.

Assigning D. K.'s Style

D. K.'s style is dominating. Every line pursues his own interest, full bins and no stoppages, and none shows concern for Linden's position or curiosity about why the stockouts happened. "I don't want explanations" explicitly refuses information that might change the picture. The threat in the first exchange, "we'll look at another supplier," and the decision to copy Linden's sales manager on the second message both apply pressure rather than invite a joint solution. Dominating is not irrational here: D. K. is judged on line uptime, and forty-minute stoppages are costly. But the style closes off the one conversation that would reveal the cause.

Assigning A. S.'s Style

A. S.'s style in the exchanges with D. K. is obliging. She accepts full responsibility in the first sentence of each reply, "that's on us" and "understood," and offers a fix that costs Linden money without asking anything of the plant. Doubling minimums on all 5/8-inch bolts increases the inventory Linden owns at the plant, and daily visits add labor. Her third remark shows a shift toward avoiding: she knows the likely cause, a model change the plant did not communicate, and decides not to raise it because she expects to be dismissed.

What the Combination Produces

The pairing of a dominating party with an obliging one produces quick, quiet settlements that leave the cause untouched. Each stockout ends with D. K. satisfied and A. S. absorbing the cost, so the immediate conflict disappears. But the heavier frame keeps consuming more bolts than the bins were set for, and the same imbalance will appear on other part numbers as the plant changes designs. Three consequences follow.

First, Linden's costs rise. Doubled minimums across a bolt family and daily visits cost roughly $1,800 a month in additional inventory carrying and labor, an amount the contract does not cover.

Second, information stops flowing. The obliging party learns that raising causes is unwelcome, and shifts toward avoiding. The plant never learns that its engineering changes drive stockouts, so it cannot prevent the next one.

Third, the relationship becomes brittle. D. K.'s confidence that pressure works grows with each concession, and A. S.'s resentment grows with each unspoken explanation. When a larger failure occurs, the pattern makes an integrating conversation harder, not easier.

Thomas (1992) emphasized that conflict-handling styles describe choices made in particular situations, not fixed traits, and that the appropriate style depends on what is at stake. Here the stake that matters most, a supply process that keeps working as the plant's designs change, is exactly the one neither style addresses.

What Would Change the Outcome

An integrating move from either side would change the pattern. A. S. could bring the consumption data to D. K.: "Usage of this bolt rose 40 percent after the February model change. If your engineering team shares change notices with us, we can adjust bins before the line runs short." That statement keeps concern for D. K.'s interest, uptime, while asserting Linden's, a workable process. D. K. could equally ask why the bins emptied twice in one month after a year without stockouts. The diagnosis suggests A. S. is the more likely to move first, since she holds the information, but she will need her sales manager's backing to risk D. K.'s reaction.

What Linden's Sales Manager Can Do

A. S. should not have to change the pattern alone. Linden's sales manager, who was copied on the second email, is the person with standing to open a different conversation with the plant. A short meeting with D. K. and the plant's materials manager, framed around keeping the line running rather than around fault, would let A. S. present the consumption data with support behind her. The sales manager can also propose a standing rule: the plant sends engineering change notices that touch fastener usage to Linden on the day they are approved.

Limits

The case presents three exchanges, which may not represent the whole relationship. D. K. may be more collaborative in other settings, and A. S.'s remark to a colleague may overstate her frustration. A diagnosis from a handful of quotations is a hypothesis to test in the next conversation, not a final judgment on either person.

References

Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 26(2), 368-376. https://doi.org/10.2307/255985

Rahim, M. A., & Magner, N. R. (1995). Confirmatory factor analysis of the styles of handling interpersonal conflict: First-order factor model and its invariance across groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(1), 122-132. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.80.1.122

Thomas, K. W. (1992). Conflict and conflict management: Reflections and update. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(3), 265-274. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130307