Group case mechanics and team conflict

Four decisions that make a group case one document

The group PSP case is marked as one document, and module 6 gave the first rule: divide by criterion, not by stage. The other three follow from it. Roles. For a four-person Kestrel team: one owner per criterion group — Aisha takes margin and fit (the money and the assortment), Ben takes quality and reliability (the exhibit's operational columns), Chloé takes sustainability and the conflict of interest (the ethical element, which needs one careful writer) — and Dev is the integrator, who owns stages 1 and 4 and writes the final draft. Each criterion owner writes the scores, the reasons and the sentence per supplier for their rows; the integrator assembles the matrix, runs the sensitivity and writes the memo in one voice. The consensus rule, agreed before the first disagreement: weights are set together in the first meeting, and a disputed score is settled by the reason, not the vote — whoever cannot state the reason yields. Version control. One file, named with a date and a version — Kestrel-memo-2026-02-20-v3.docx — edited by one person at a time, with the integrator holding the current version; five copies in five inboxes is how five voices get into one memo. The calendar. Working backwards from 27 February: criterion sections in by the 20th; the integrator's draft on the 23rd; everyone's rubric pass on the 25th; the file submitted on the 26th, a day early.

Worked example — the broken promise

Ben promised his two rows for the 20th. On the 20th he sends nothing and does not reply. Olds's five phases of a conflict give the team a way to see what is happening before it decides what to do. Prelude: the scene — four students, a shared mark, a deadline in a week, a group chat where nobody has met in person. Triggering event: a rebuff — an action asked for and not met (Olds's other triggers: an illegitimate demand, criticism, a non-cumulative annoyance, a cumulative annoyance, and a mutual one). Initiation: the phase at which the team chooses — confront, avoid, or take another action. This is the phase at which a conflict is best addressed: early, and with the fact, not the feeling — Ben, your rows were due yesterday and the integrator's draft starts on the 23rd; can you send what you have by tonight, and say what is blocking the rest? Differentiation: the conflict is contained, agreed or escalated — Olds's three outcomes are passed (ignored), refocused (handed to a third party — the TA) or mitigated (worked out between the parties). Resolution: a win–win where both are satisfied, or a lose–lose where the team submits late and Ben is reported. It turns out Ben's laptop failed and he has been rewriting from notes; his rows arrive on the 21st, half done, and Chloé finishes the reasons with him on a call.

Five styles, chosen on purpose

Olds gives five styles by concern for self against concern for others. Competing — high self, low other: winning; right when a rule or a safety issue is not negotiable, and a disaster in writing, where a competing message reads as an attack. Avoiding — low both: silence, hints, jokes; right when the stakes are low and the conflict temporary, and the style that quietly sinks group cases when it is not. Accommodating — low self, high other: yielding; right when you are wrong or have little to lose, and a pushover's habit when it is the default under time pressure — Olds notes that accommodating is more likely exactly when time is short. Compromising — moderate both: each gives something; a partial win–lose that settles things for now and can resurface. Collaborating — high both: a solution both parties own; the slowest and the only one that produces a win–win. For Ben's rows the team collaborated (Chloé's call) rather than accommodated (silently doing his rows and resenting it) or competed (a message about reliability that would have ended the team).

Pick a style for two situations

Aisha wants the margin weight at 0.35; Chloé wants sustainability at 0.35; the deadline is in five days. Collaborate on the reason — trace each weight to a stakeholder objective — and if the reasons are equally good, compromise on 0.25 / 0.20 and run both as sensitivity. Dev, integrating, finds one paragraph in Chloé's section that accuses Lena of protecting her sister. Compete, briefly and in private: the sentence is an accusation in a document the CFO will file, it is not negotiable, and the fix is the fact-about-the-source wording.

Name them cold

Phases: prelude, triggering event, initiation, differentiation, resolution. Styles: competing, avoiding, accommodating, compromising, collaborating. Division: by criterion, with an integrator for one voice.