LEAD 4003 Module 4 Conflict Resolution Plan Example

Unfinished Picks at Shift Change: Planning a Mediated Conversation Between Two Team Leads Using Interest-Based Conflict Resolution

Student Name

American College of Education

LEAD4003: Collaborative Business Communication

Module 4 Assignment

Instructor Name

November 2, 2026

Introduction

Conflict between team leads spreads fast in a distribution center, because every selector on both shifts feels it. For four months, the day-shift lead, Marcus, and the night-shift lead, Teresa, have argued about orders left unfinished at shift change. The weekend rotation has added a new dispute: each believes the other's crew should cover the first weekend shifts while volunteers are recruited. Last week they argued on the dock in front of their crews. As the night supervisor, and with the day supervisor's agreement, I will mediate a conversation between them. This paper diagnoses the conflict, maps their positions and interests and plans the conversation stage by stage. Names and details are composites.

Diagnosing the Conflict

The conflict began as a task conflict, a disagreement about work: how many open orders are acceptable at handoff and who finishes them. It has become a relationship conflict as well. Marcus now describes Teresa as someone who dumps work on days, and Teresa says Marcus blames nights for his own crew's slow starts. Pooled results from many teams suggest that disagreements over work and clashes between people both drag down team performance and member satisfaction (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003), which matches what I see: mis-picks rose after the dock argument, and selectors have started taking sides. The plan must address the task disagreement while lowering the personal temperature, because the relationship conflict now blocks any practical solution.

How Each Lead Handles Conflict

Thomas (1992) described five ways people handle conflict, depending on how hard a person presses for what they want and how far they try to meet the other side's needs: competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding and accommodating. Marcus tends to compete; he argues hard, cites numbers and rarely concedes in public. Teresa usually avoids conflict, then competes when she feels cornered, which is what happened on the dock. Knowing these patterns shapes the plan. Marcus will need a structure in which listening is required before arguing, and Teresa will need a private setting and time to speak without interruption, so that she does not fall back into avoidance or escalate again.

Positions and Interests

Interest-based negotiation distinguishes positions, what people say they want, from interests, the needs and concerns behind those demands, and holds that agreements built on interests last longer (Fisher et al., 2011). Marcus's position is that nights must clear all orders before handoff. His interests are starting his shift without a backlog that makes his crew miss early truck departures and not having his crew blamed for late trucks. Teresa's position is that some orders cannot be finished because product arrives late from receiving. Her interests are not being judged for delays she does not control and protecting her crew from forced overtime at the end of a night. On weekend coverage, both leads share an interest they have not noticed: neither wants their crew to carry an unfair share. The positions are opposed; the interests overlap far more than either lead realizes.

Preparing for the Conversation

Preparation has four parts. First, separate fifteen-minute meetings with each lead, in which I listen to their account and explain the process, so that neither is surprised and each feels heard before the joint meeting. Second, data both will accept: two weeks of handoff reports showing open orders at 6 a.m., with a column for orders delayed by late receiving. Third, a neutral setting, the training room rather than either lead's office, at a time when neither is coming off a shift. Fourth, ground rules both agree to in advance: one person speaks at a time, criticize the process, not the person, and nothing said leaves the room except the agreement.

Staying Neutral

My neutrality is the plan's weak point, because Teresa reports to me and Marcus does not. Marcus may assume I will side with my own lead. Three steps reduce that risk. The day supervisor will attend the opening and closing of the joint meeting, so that both leads see their own supervisor present. I will speak to Marcus first in the preparation meetings, to signal that his account matters as much as Teresa's. And the handoff data will come from the shift reports both leads already sign, not from my own notes. If Marcus still doubts my neutrality, I will offer to bring in the human resources partner as co-mediator.

The Mediation, Stage by Stage

Stage 1, opening (5 minutes). I restate the purpose and ground rules: "We're here to fix handoffs and weekend coverage so both crews can do their jobs. Each of you will speak without interruption, then we'll work on solutions together." Stage 2, each story (15 minutes). Teresa speaks first, since she is more likely to withdraw if she waits; Marcus must summarize what he heard before giving his own account, and Teresa then does the same for him. Stage 3, interests (10 minutes). I ask each, "What do you need from a handoff to have a good shift?" and write answers on the whiteboard in two columns, then circle the shared ones. Stage 4, options (15 minutes). Together we list possible solutions without judging them, such as a handoff standard that excludes orders delayed by receiving, a fifteen-minute overlap for the two leads and alternating first-weekend coverage between crews. Stage 5, agreement (10 minutes). We choose options both can accept, write them down with a start date and schedule a check-in two weeks later.

If It Goes Wrong

Three problems are likely. If Marcus interrupts, I will remind him of the ground rule and ask him to hold the point for his turn. If Teresa goes quiet, I will ask an open question about her crew rather than about the dispute, which is usually easier to answer. If the discussion turns personal, I will name what is happening, "We're back to who's to blame," and return to the interests on the whiteboard. If the meeting stalls completely, I will call a break and meet each lead briefly alone before resuming, a common move when emotions are high.

Follow-Up

The agreement will be shared with both crews by the two leads together at a combined huddle, which signals that the conflict is over and that they are presenting a shared plan. At the two-week check-in, we will review handoff numbers and any new friction, and adjust the standard if needed. I will also watch for signs that the relationship conflict persists, such as side comments in huddles, and address them early in one-on-one conversations. If the agreement holds for a full quarter, the overlap meeting between the two leads will become a permanent part of the schedule.

Conclusion

The conflict between the two leads started over open orders and has become personal, which now blocks practical solutions. A plan built on each lead's conflict style, a clear map of positions and interests, preparation meetings and shared data, and a five-stage mediation with ground rules, summarizing and joint problem solving gives the conversation its best chance. Follow-up with both crews makes the agreement visible. Module 5 brings the course together in a communication plan for the whole team.

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