| Course | WMBA 6627 Stakeholder Management and Organizational Behavior |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 6 |
| Paper type | Conflict case analysis |
| Length | About 1,020 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Master of Business Administration (MBA) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for WMBA 6627 Week 6
Who Serves the 412 Accounts: A Conflict Between an Office Principal and a Service Center Manager, Dated and Quoted, With Positions Set Beside Interests and the Style Each Side Used at Three Moments
Student Name
Walden University
WMBA 6627: Stakeholder Management and Organizational Behavior
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Who Serves the 412 Accounts: A Conflict Between an Office Principal and a Service Center Manager, Dated and Quoted, With Positions Set Beside Interests and the Style Each Side Used at Three Moments
The Case
One Book, the composite Harbor Point brokerage's consolidation of client files, also shifts routine service work out of the offices and into two regional centers. The Worcester office's 412 commercial accounts became the center of a dispute between the office principal, who had owned the Worcester agency until Harbor Point bought it six years earlier, and the manager of the Springfield service center.
April 6, 2027. At the regional operations meeting, the service center manager asked when Worcester's commercial accounts would migrate. The principal answered, "When we're sure the center can handle them. These clients expect to hear from people who know them."
April 22. The service center manager emailed the chief operating officer, copying the principal: "Worcester is the only office still holding its commercial book outside the system. My team can't build a renewal calendar for accounts we can't see."
April 23. The principal replied to all: "My account managers have served these clients for twelve years. I'm not handing them to a call center."
May 10. The chief operating officer convened a meeting. The principal proposed keeping all commercial accounts in Worcester permanently. The service center manager proposed moving all of them to Springfield by June 30. Neither moved.
May 24. A Worcester client's property renewal was nearly missed when one of the two Worcester account managers was on leave; the other caught it two days before expiration.
Positions and Interests
Table 1
Positions, Interests and Evidence
| Party | Stated position | Underlying interest | Evidence for that reading | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Office principal | Keep all commercial accounts in Worcester, outside the shared system | Protect client relationships, her standing and the earn-out tied to Worcester revenue | Her April 23 email stresses relationships; her earn-out runs through 2028; personal lines moved on schedule | |
| Service center manager | Move all commercial accounts to Springfield by June 30 | Build a complete renewal calendar and prove the center's value | His April 22 email cites the renewal calendar; his bonus depends on center service levels | |
| Chief operating officer | No stated position | Finish One Book on schedule without losing commercial clients or the principal | His convening the May 10 meeting rather than deciding by email | |
Quotations are from the case emails and meeting notes; the firm and people are composite.
Fisher et al. (2011) argued that negotiators who focus on interests rather than positions find agreements positions hide. Read this way, the two sides' interests are not opposed. The principal wants clients served by people who know them and wants her revenue counted. The service center manager wants visibility of every renewal date. Both could be satisfied if the accounts moved into the shared system while staying with Worcester account managers, with revenue credited to Worcester.
Conflict Styles at Three Moments
At the April 6 meeting, the principal avoided. Her answer, "when we're sure," deferred the issue without stating a condition that could be met. Thomas (1992) described avoiding as low assertiveness and low cooperativeness, and noted that it can be useful when an issue is minor or more information is needed. Here it postponed a conflict that would only grow.
On April 22 and 23, both sides competed. The service center manager escalated in writing with the principal copied, and the principal answered by framing the center as a "call center," a phrase that turned a disagreement about process into one about status. De Dreu and Weingart (2003) found in a meta-analysis that both relationship conflict and task conflict were negatively related to team performance, and the email exchange converted a task question into a relationship one.
On May 10, both held firm positions with no movement, a standoff the chief operating officer's meeting format, two proposals and a decision request, encouraged.
What the Near Miss Changed
The May 24 renewal changed the facts. It showed that two account managers holding 412 accounts outside any shared calendar is a real risk for clients, not only an inconvenience for the service center. It also showed that the Worcester account managers, not the principal's relationships alone, are what clients depend on, which supports keeping them on the accounts. The near miss also gave the chief operating officer a fact both sides could accept, which is often what a stalled dispute lacks: neither party could claim the risk was imagined, and neither could claim the other side's concern was only about status.
What Could Have Been Done Differently
The chief operating officer's May 10 meeting asked each side for a proposal and then for a decision, which invited both to defend positions. A different format, asking each side first what conditions would let the accounts move without harm, would have surfaced the interests in the first hour. The service center manager's April 22 email could have gone to the principal alone, with an offer to meet, rather than to her boss with her copied. And the principal could have named her concern about the earn-out directly, which would have let the firm address it months earlier. None of these choices was unreasonable alone. Together, they turned a solvable question about account servicing into a contest over status that took two months and a near miss to break.
A Path Forward
The analysis points to an integrating outcome. The commercial accounts move into the shared system by August 31, so every renewal appears on the regional calendar. Worcester account managers remain the assigned servicers, with the Springfield center as backup during absences. Revenue and earn-out credit stay with Worcester in writing. The service center manager gains the visibility he needs; the principal keeps the relationships and the revenue she is protecting. Neither got their stated position, and both get their main interest. The chief operating officer should confirm the arrangement in writing and review it after the first renewal season. If either side resists the written terms, the sticking point will show which interest was misread, and that is the place to reopen the conversation rather than the whole arrangement.
References
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741-749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741
Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in (3rd ed.). Penguin Books.
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
The Walden WMBA 6627 Week 6 instructions
The conflict case analysis asks students to examine a real or realistic dispute between parties in an organization. Instructors expect five to six pages built around a two-column comparison. The case should be set out first, in about a page, with events dated and the words each party used quoted where they matter. A table then lists each party's stated position beside the underlying interest and the evidence for that reading. A section on conflict styles should tie each style to specific moments rather than labeling people. Strong papers also consider what could have been done differently and propose a resolution that addresses interests rather than positions. Quoted words matter because a single phrase can turn a disagreement about process into one about status.
Inside the WMBA 6627 Week 6 example
The paper dates five events and quotes the principal's and service center manager's key statements, including a phrase that turned a process question into a status contest. A table sets positions beside interests for three parties, with evidence. A section cites Fisher and colleagues to show that the interests are compatible. A styles section ties avoiding to the first meeting, competing to the email exchange and a standoff to the decision meeting, citing Thomas and De Dreu and Weingart. A section explains how the near miss changed the facts. A section describes choices that could have prevented escalation. The path forward keeps accounts with local staff inside the shared system. Margin comments flag the dated case and the moment-based styles.
WMBA 6627 Week 6 rubric: what earns full marks
Graders reward a case narrative with dated events and quoted words that reveal how the conflict developed. The position-interest table, with evidence for each interpretation, carries significant weight. Tying conflict styles to specific moments demonstrates analytical precision. Explaining how events changed the conflict, and what choices escalated it, shows depth. A resolution that addresses underlying interests, rather than splitting the difference between positions, demonstrates understanding of integrative approaches. A timeline that dates each escalation lets a grader see the conflict change shape, which is the point of the case. Papers that show how a specific event changed the facts of a conflict demonstrate careful reading of the case.
WMBA 6627 Week 6 help: mistakes that cost marks
Write the sequence of events first, with dates and the exact words people used at turning points. Then, for each party, separate what they said they wanted from why they might want it, and note the evidence for your reading. Identify the style each side used at each moment rather than labeling the people. Students often lose marks by summarizing the conflict in general terms, by guessing at interests without evidence or by proposing a compromise that satisfies no one. Another frequent gap is ignoring how escalation happened. Name the moments. If you need a custom sample conflict case analysis, send us the sequence of events with names removed.
Get a WMBA 6627 Week 6 example written to your instructions
Include the Week 6 prompt and rubric with the dispute your section assigned, or a short account of one from your own workplace, and a finished case returns with positions and interests set side by side and terms proposed at the end. No charge the first time, 24-48 hours.
More WMBA 6627 papers and MBA samples
- WMBA 6627 Week 1: Withheld Support Discussion Post
- WMBA 6627 Week 2: Stakeholder Identification Register
- WMBA 6627 Week 3: Power Interest Grid Analysis
- WMBA 6627 Week 4: Stakeholder Grid Peer Replies
- WMBA 6627 Week 5: Workplace Motivation Analysis
- WMBA 6627 Week 7: Stakeholder Engagement Plan
- WMBA 6627 Week 8: Stakeholder Influence Strategy
- WMBA 6627 Week 9: Team Norms Behavior Memo
- WMBA 6627 Week 10: Stakeholder Briefing Note
- WMBA 6627 Week 11: Final Stakeholder Report
- WMBA 6623 Week 6: Quantitative Risk Analysis
- WMBA 6620 Week 6: Bottom-Up Project Cost Estimate
- WMBA 6615 Week 6: Culture Analysis Peer Replies
- WMBA 6608 Week 6: Capital Project Appraisal
WMBA 6627 Week 6 questions, answered
Where can I find a free WMBA 6627 Week 6 sample paper?
The workplace conflict case analysis over 412 commercial accounts is published in full here.
Who is in conflict?
An acquired office's principal and a regional service center manager.
What are their underlying interests?
Protecting client relationships and earn-out revenue, and seeing every renewal date on one calendar.
Which styles appear?
Avoiding at the first meeting, competing in emails and a standoff at the decision meeting.
What resolution is proposed?
Move the accounts into the shared system while keeping local account managers and crediting revenue locally.