Conflicts are considered to be interpersonal relationships completed with repetitive rules and behavior. The ways of assessing the conflict can be numerously reached through various techniques and structural analysis. The case study under consideration discloses the conflict between the Statler Group and Kellogg-Champion Securities leading to problematic cooperation between the consulting service and the client.
Case Study
It should be noted that one of the principal tasks to be provided by the consultant service is considered to be the development of perspectives and new insights concerning particular situations, but in most cases, these tasks are completely ignored and are presented in the form of technical regulations aimed at solution delivery. The case under analysis discloses a similar perception of the job by Barlow and Roussos who never tried to explore specific aims and policies. The study concerns the client’s dissatisfaction with the consultant’s work as to the emerged case striving to make things clear through an organized meeting. (Fowler and Kesner, 4)
Conflict analysis should be based on the identification of both sides’ views and their vision of the problem. The principal objective of the meeting was to start cooperation afresh; Kellogg expressed serious concerns as to the skills of the specialists damaging the reputation of the company.
- Evaluating the consultants view it should be noted that their principal task was not only to listen to but to “hear” the requests of the client striving to meet all their needs; Kellogg failed to interpret the problem in the most appropriate way ignoring miscellaneous details and substituting them with personal ideas and thinking.
- The client’s perception of the situation covered the aspect of consultants’ inexperience and low level of professionalism; the client believes that problems were initially created by the consultant ignoring the fact that they were unavoidable.
According to the Wilmot-Hocker Conflict Assessment Guide, the problem under analysis can be evaluated through the identification of its nature, being the quality of consultant service and prejudiced attitude of the client to the company. The evaluation of the working system has shown the unavoidable character of the conflict through Kellogg’s problem connected with the emerged case, “The big integration related issues had been resolved”, though it was not so. (Rau, 7)
The method of recurring patterns identification allows restating the steps to be done by the representatives of both sides: Susan Barlow is to start the meeting with the problem analysis and perspective offer of its solution; Kellogg is to express his concerns and dissatisfaction demonstrating aspects to be corrected. Both sides participating in the conflict situation contributed to its development; further steps are to be aimed at Barlow’s attempts to resolve the integration issues and Kellogg’s providing sufficient information as to the point under concern. (Wilmot and Joyce, 204)
Restated conditions of the client and consultant cooperation are to be formulated and followed for “public disaster” avoiding. The case study based on the Systems Theory disclosed the nature of the conflict and its possible ways out.
References
Fowler, S. and Kesner, I. F. (1997) When Consultants and Clients Clash. Harvard Business Review.
Rau, J. (1997). Is the business relationship between the Statler Group and Kellogg-Champion Securities a lost cause? How should the consultants—and the client—handle the status meeting? Case Commentary.
Wilmot, W. and Joyce L. Hocker. Interpersonal Conflict. 7th edition. Harvard Business Review on Negotiation and Conflict Resolution. Harvard Business School Press.