Module 04
Spring 2006 Closure

Prepared by Greg Kinney

This chapter was one of the last that deals with the “soft science” of projects, which in fact is the hardest stuff of all.  Although it wasn’t as explicit as it might have been, there are a couple of points to take away:

• Conflict is a normal part of the process and the PM must be prepared to deal with it.
• A project without healthy conflict will fail to realize all the benefits of having a team with diverse skills working together.

That said, here is the feedback summary:

MUDDY ITEMS
Q:  "The muddiest" was Figure 6-1 at page 300 in the textbook, I would expect personality conflicts to rise more towards the end of the project as people get more stressed out due to time limits and uncertainty what the future will bring, but this figure does not show that. (this is also what Thamhain and Wilemon says 1975b, but the figure Thamhain and Wilemon 1975a doesn't show that). 
A:  Figure 6-1 “Conflict intensity over the project life cycle” (Thamhain and Wilemon 1975a) illustrates seven conflict areas and the intensity of each as a function of project stage.  Personality conflict is shown at about the same level (intensity level 0.15 in the scale they use) at all phases except the early program phases (slightly lower, maybe 0.14, during the main project phase).  To me, this is saying that personality conflict is always a factor, and always a relatively constant factor, except for the early phases of a program.  At that time, personality conflicts become more important because of the approach testing and jockeying for position that must occur then.  These things tend to really bring out conflicts; it is also characterized as the “storming” part of the “forming – storming – norming – performing” cycle.  Thamhain and Wilemon aren’t saying that personality conflicts aren’t important as the project approaches closure, just that they occur about at the normal level of dysfunction.  From my own experience, the last phases of a project are often intense, but that tends to foster focused thinking and collaboration – in other words, personality conflicts are often put aside in the interest of the cause.  However, the textbook (p. 305) (and also the “text answer” posted in Blackboard) acknowledges that conflicts can rise toward a project’s completion, in part because of jockeying for position regarding the next job.

Q:  Let me post a question to you. The above question [“What was the most useful or meaningful thing you learned from this module?”] assumes that the information that was evaluated was before now, unknown. If the material covered is not new then how can one answer, “What was the most useful or meaningful thing you learned?” Term in question is “learned.” Furthermore, all information learned from these modules will be useful, that is the reason for learning the material in the first place. As to most, how would one determine what is most useful or meaningful without having applied the knowledge learned. To me most would refer to information that had a definitive effect upon a situation. I am not stating that all the material that has been or will be covered is not new. However, some material dealing with management and conflict resolution is a required subject for advancement within the NAVY (, and I would assume all branches of the military). And since the military was the role model for project management, some material would correlate. Furthermore, for those who may have had to take anger-management classes, the points covered in these classes (even though focused on different issues) cover the same approach toward the resolution of a conflict. In addition, other classes have covered bits and pieces of material that has been combined into this one textbook, up to now (by no means all the material).
It is not that I am trying to get out of answering questions 1(above) & 2 (below). In fact, I have written more here than all the previous modules combined. It is just that I feel that these questions do not always pertain to all modules. How can one decide which part of any new material learned is more valuable or useful than another (especially when the person believes all knowledge learned is and will be valuable/useful at some point in time)? And they are worth points.   
A:  Good questions.  First let’s look at the semantics.  Every one of us comes into this material with some degree of experience, and probably some degree of exposure to the concepts of the book.  But that experience and exposure is variable from one person to the next.  Thus, what may be new material learned by one student may be very old to you.  For instance, I read Fisher and Ury’s Getting to Yes years ago (and still think of it as the gold standard for a book of its kind), so their discussion of principled negotiation is nothing new to me.  Still, I find Meredith and Mantel’s synopsis a fair and useful summary that is well worth it for me – as a refresher, if nothing else.  So, to sum up, I would urge you to reinterpret the question slightly – we’re simply asking what material, new or otherwise to you, either most resonates with you and your experience, or adds something new from your personal perspective that you can see application for in the future.

Q:  What was the “muddiest” item in the module? I understand the reason for this question. It lets you know which areas may need further explanation and I would ask if I had any questions. Nevertheless, it also suggests that all persons reading this material do not have the full capability of comprehending the material covered (Sore point for me). Especially, when required for points that are counted towards a grade (it makes it a question requiring an answer).  I have never like these types of questions, they seem tailored for certain groups of individuals and therefore do not include all types (slow and fast learners, experience and inexperienced, etc). Thank you, for taking the time to read these comments. It just after having to answer these same questions five times now, when I feel that they do not always pertain to the information has gotten to me and I had to respond. I know that responding in such a way may have been better if done in a separate document.
A:  I can empathize with you.  I remember some years taking an early version of one of Dr. Perkins’ on-line courses (not this one, but the Toxicology course); I, too, tended to dislike these questions.  Now that the shoe is on the other foot for me, I understand better the wisdom of asking, and moreover asking at least one question of the instructor.  The major reason is the nature of the course.  As an on-line course, it presents certain conveniences to both the student and instructor, but without specifically asking for and rewarding dialog, it is hard to know what is working with students and what doesn’t. 
As a student, I’ve usually been a reluctant participant in feedback forms and the like.  This, in spite of the fact that professors always say with obvious sincerity that they want, appreciate and use the feedback.  Again, now that I’m on the other side of this, I see clearly the need for this.  Instructors have come into the subject matter years earlier than the students, and we also have to work both ahead of and behind the students whether in on line class or otherwise.  So we need to know what is working and what isn’t, and what is and isn’t clear.  Think of it as a classroom.  If students were in a lecture hall, we would expect some degree of class participation, asking questions and/or offering perspectives.  Though imperfect, this is a pretty good way of encouraging the same kind of two way dialog (in addition to the outstanding intragroup dialog you have in Group Alpha).  Bottom line, I’ll be continuing to ask for what’s clear and what’s not clear.  I’ll award points for good questions and points raised, as I have this time; and less points or no points if little or no feedback is provided.  Thanks for the opportunity to address this.

Q:  The section on conflict resolution is a little tough to handle, pointing out that there are very few effective methods used in today’s business. An effective resolution seems quite frequent. Compromise at best is one method of resolution that does seem that it is being used in normal everyday business. Forcing is what seems to typically be used in common everyday conflict resolution. 
A:  I think that most authorities would say that “forcing” isn’t real conflict resolution.  It isn’t win-win; it is win-lose and winner takes all.  It sometimes is necessary, but often it acts to destroy trust and causes conflicts to fester and manifest in more destructive ways later on.  What may be beneficial is that it gets the job done – but it’s beneficial only if the results are good.  The larger “team” won’t take ownership easily, and won’t take ownership of downstream problems if a forced result turns out bad. 
Compromise is better, and often necessary, but still not as good as a principled approach.  (Fisher and Ury discuss this at length in their book Getting to Yes.)  Compromises typically make both sides unhappy:  it’s lose-lose.  At best, it makes both sides equally unhappy.  At worst, one side is disproportionately unhappy relative to the other.  This situation has the clear potential for fostering resentments and damaged relationships.  You are absolutely right, though.  Despite the mediocre to poor results associated with compromise and forcing, these continue to be the predominant methods of “resolving” issues in businesses I’m familiar with.  Even though better methods are available, most managers lack both the skills and patience to implement a better way in a consistent manner.   And sometimes you have no good choice, and have to force the issue.

Q:  The entire chapter was relatively clear to me.  If I had to pick out one issue that was slightly unclear or “muddy”, I would have to pick the section titled “Nature of Negotiation”.  (I realize that negotiation is a wide topic and a course of its own).  In particular, the term “lateral relations” was used to illustrate a potential conflict within an organization.  I think the authors could have elaborated a little more on this scenario.  They briefly touched on it and entered into a discussion of Pareto-optimal.  Just to reiterate, I was satisfied with this chapter and I am not complaining.  I understood the reading and felt the chapter was pretty good overall.
A:   The discussion in Section 6.1 seemed weak to me as well.  A much better synopsis of the “nature of negotiation” (on the course website) states as follows:
“Negotiation is one process used to resolve conflict.  Generally the goal is to come up with solutions that are mutually agreeable to the parties involved.  One way to define ‘agreeable’ is to find a solution (quoting the text) ‘such that no party can be made better off without making another party worse off by the same amount or more.’  This is known as a Pareto-optimal solution.  An additional assumption is that the negotiation takes place in an environment of mutually agreeable ethics.” 
For me, this paragraph says it much better than what’s in the text itself. 

Q:  The text skims some cultural aspects of conflict resolution. In your experience, are there any unique considerations to conflict resolution techniques in regard to Alaskan cultures? 
A:  I’m not an expert in Alaska Native cultures or in other ethnic populations that have settled in Alaska, but I’ll give you my observations for what they’re worth.  I believe that there are major differences in approach to conflict between the dominant American (i.e., WASP male) culture and other cultures.  These differences show up every time we interact with other cultures, and they often work to our disadvantage.  In particular, there is a bias toward immediacy in American culture, so that we program ourselves to confront issues and, if necessary, to confront people as early as possible.  As we see in the text, there are good reasons to do so, because that’s how you may be able to arrest trends that are going the wrong way.  However, this way of doing things places primacy on now-oriented results (mostly financial) and by definition places relationships at a much lower priority level.  I think that other cultures, including but not limited to Native cultures, place a much higher priority on relationships.  People in those cultures may perceive whites as behaving in a boisterous and high-handed manner because of their “results now” orientation; what I’ve observed is that they often will not directly confront whites, but will remain silent and won’t open up.  The net result is that whites will sometimes lose the vital cooperation of others, because effective communication requires effective rapport, and that doesn’t happen.
Summing up, my personal perspective is that the problem of conflict resolution is a subset of the entire problem of cross-cultural communication.  To have worthy results requires an investment of time and effort that is unfortunately not the norm in American business.

Q:  Muddiest thing: It seems like there is always a win-win situation. In my mind there exist conflicts where there is no win-win situation; for example when using subcontractors. If one side complains the prize is too low, then the other will suffer from raising it. Are there always win-win solutions? Or is that just something to pretend to find the best solution, where the total damage is minimized? 
A:  Hopefully we aren’t giving the wrong impression in this chapter.  Every conflict cannot be turned into a so-called “win-win.”  A classic case would be World War II.  By the time the United States became a combatant, the idea of resolving the conflict through peaceful “win-win” approaches was clearly out of the question.  Someone had to win and someone had to lose. 
What Fisher and Ury talk about is actually something a little more sophisticated than the concept of “win-win.”  They call it “inventing options for mutual gain.”  This is meant to address the very common negotiating problem when more divides the parties than just a bottom line.  Paradoxically, these multiple fault lines also provide multiple paths for reconciling the interests of the parties, and that’s what their approach exploits.
Sometimes, however, there really is just a core dispute about a core issue, and there’s just no other mutual-gains options that appear viable.  That’s when disputes end up getting litigated and/or adjudicated.  In that case, usually there is a lose-lose situation; even the winner ends up damaged by the attorney fees and possibly the hurt reputation and emotional scars.  That’s why a negotiated settlement or arbitration is often preferred.  Those types of resolution are rarely win-win in character; they often split the difference and make both sides unhappy, but less unhappy than they could be without such resolution.

Q:  I wouldn’t say anything was troubling in the chapter.  Chartering was a little questionable.  I have a preconceived notion of chartering from my Corps work and the book didn’t quite describe it like I had in my head. 
A:  By way of comment, in Alyeska we have used project charters similar to what’s described on page 296 on occasion.  Usually this is done for projects that are either unusual in scope, have high management and regulatory visibility and involve high dollars or other risks.  In some cases, the charters have gone clear to the company presidential level, detailing agreement as to roles and responsibilities as well as detailing agreement on deliverables.   
It’s debatable whether this level of chartering is needed very often, but it would likely be helpful in some cases where it’s not been done. 

CLEAR ITEMS

• The most meaningful I learned in this session was principled negotiation technique, I'll print this technique out and put it on the wall and use it when conflicts arise to try to create a win-win situation. Another thing that I think is important to remember is that conflicts must be allowed early in the process, if they don't they might escalate and create bigger problems.
• Probably the most understood and easily learned were the methods negotiation and there uses in project management. The key to this is to understand that the work of project will be done. And to be aware there will be conflicts, that is the nature of the process. Also we need to point out that the conflict must be settled without irreparable harm to the project’s objectives.  Just knowing to expect a little conflict and to have others recognize it is expected helps the PM.
• Chapter 6 was a very philosophical kind of chapter.  Nevertheless, chapter 6 was practical and informative.  I think Doctor Phil could have been quoted in this chapter and he would have fit in nicely.  There were many good principles set forth in this chapter.  Unfortunately, I think these principles will only work if everyone involved is playing by the same set of rules.  It’s too bad we couldn’t get politicians to sit down and utilize some of the good points set forth in this chapter.  Too many times, companies, clients and functional departments act like politicians and go for the jugular.  I did appreciate the information and I will use some of what I learned when appropriate.  I particularly enjoyed the section on principled negotiation.  The points made really illustrate the skeleton of an upcoming project in terms of providing stability and structure that will mean something at the end of the project.  In other words, the project has something to hang on. 
• Fisher and Ury shed light on how positional bargaining is based on a static environment. It is easy to overlook the fact that there are dynamic forces affecting our projects. Once accepted, this concept encourages us to stand down from our bargaining positions and allows the flexible negotiation to begin.
• The clearest thing is chapter 6.4 about requirements and principles of negotiations. Following the guidelines and any conflict should end happy. Everybody should get educated in negotiation skills.
• I really enjoyed this chapter for the discussion on conflict.  This is probably the subject that is most practical to my daily workday.  Having the discussion online was also very helpful, hearing the feedback from my classmates.