Case Incident 1: Choosing Your Battles

14-11) How would you ensure sufficient discussion of contentious issues in a work group? How can managers bring unspoken conflicts into the open without making them worse?

I would ensure that issues that could cause problems in a work group were discussed sufficiently by creating an environment where people fell safe to discuss issues. I would make sure that people knew that bringing up issues is important to keep the group dynamic strong. I would also make sure that the group knew that the goals of the group were important and that by working together we would complete our goals. So making sure that everyone discusses all of the issues they have when they happen is important to be able to work with each other. Managers can bring unspoken conflicts out into the open with out making them worse by encouraging people to talk about any problems that have been going on. Also if the manager knows about some issues that have not been brought out in the open then they can address the type of problems without calling anyone out on it. But they have to make a connection to the companies or groups goals or morals. That way people will not take offense to what the manager is saying.

14-12) How can negotiators utilize conflict management strategies to their advantage so that differences in interests lead not to dysfunctional conflicts but rater to positive integrative solutions?

Negotiators can utilize conflit management to make the two parties feel as if they are both trying to reach the same goals. They could use the smoothing technique where ether play down their differences and emphasize the common interest between the two. That way both groups will not be focusing on what the differences of what they want are but in working together to reach their shared goals. They could also use compromise techniques which involves both parities giving something up. That way both parties are getting something that they want but not everything.

14-13) Can you think of situations in your own life in which silence has worsened a conflict between parties? What might have been done differently to ensure that open communication facilitated collaboration instead?

Yes, I can thing of situations in my life where silence has worsened a conflict. I remember when I was younger and my friends would get into disagreements and instead of talking out their problems they would just ignore the problem. Which would lead to an even bigger issue. The issue would turn even worse because they would talk bad about each other to other people. Therefore making the two even madder at each other since they were talking bad about the other. One thing that could have been done to ensure open communication to facilitate collaboration instead is if other people in the group would encourage the two to talk to each other and not feed into the gossip about the others in the group. If people would not engage and make the issue worse and instead tried to make it less of a problem it would have helped deescalate the issue between the two friends.


Case Incident 1: Delegate Power, or Keep It Close?

13-16) If you were Samantha Parks, how would you prioritize which projects or parts of projects to delegate?

If I were Parks I would decide what parts of projects to delegate based on the difficulty of the tasks and the importance of the tasks. If the project requires the knowledge that others would not have on the subject it would make more sense to do that part of the project yourself. If the task is something that others know how to do and are able to complete the task than it would not be the best use of your time to spend working on it. If a certain part of the project is vital to the overall completion of the project it would probably be something that you would want to do just to make sure it is done properly. Unless someone else that you trust to complete that part of the project is able to do so. Essentially it comes down to the fact that if the task is something that you could trust others to do that and is not of major importance than you can delegate the task to someone else. That does not mean that you are not in the loop as to what is going on it just means that you should not try to do everything. Especially when the task can easily be completed by someone else.

13-17) In explaining what makes her divisions hard, Parks said “I hire good people, creative people, to run these projects, and worry that they will see my oversight and authority as interfering with their creative process.” How can she deal with these concerns without giving up too much control?

Parks can deal with these concerns by explaining the guidelines of what she expects and what her involvement in the projects will be. That way people will understand from the beginning what to expect. It would not seem as if you are checking up on them to make sure they are doing their work right. It would be to know what is going on and helping to direct them so they stay in line with the businesses direction. As long as she lets them have some control and input on the outcome of the project the people would understand that the CEO wants to be involved with their business.

13-18) Should executives try to control projects to maintain authority? Do they have a right to control projects and keep in on the loop on important decisions just so they can remain in charge?

I do not think that executives should try to control projects to maintain authority. They should be guiding the other people in their business so they are all able to complete their goals. If an executive spends to much time trying to control every project they will not have time to work on other things. Controlling projects is not the best way to maintain authority if people feel like they have no say in what is happening they will not buy in to the projects as much as if you let people have some say in what they are doing. They do have the right to control projects and keep in on the loop on important decisions, but not so they can  remain in charge. Keeping up on what is going on is something that executives should do. If they have no idea of what is going on in their business it could be going in a direction that is not good for a company. They should be in charge because they are able to manage all the aspects of the business and not just control others. They should be able to work with all of the employees in a way that works for both parties to a certain aspect.

Ethical Dilemma: Is Social Loafing Unethical?

9-27) Do group members have an ethical responsibility to report shirkers to leadership? If you were working on a group project for a class and a group member was social loafing, would you communicate this information to the instructor? Why or why not?

I think that group members should report shirkers and it is something that group members have to decided based on their own ethics if they are responsible to report shirkers. Ethically I think that if I know that someone is not doing their work that they should be reported. If a group member was loafing unless it became an issue I would not report them to the instructor. If as a group we each decided what we were going to do and all the group members did what we agreed on. Though it may not have been equal I would not report them. Since it was something that we all agreed to. If a group member did not do what they were suppose to do I would report them. It is unethical for a group member to break the agreement of the group. Since when the group is deciding what to do it is an agreement. When one member dose not do what they are supposed to do they are breaking that agreement.

9-28) Do you think social loafing is always shirking (failing to live up to your responsibilities)? Are there times when shirking is ethical or even justified?

I do not think that social loafing is always shirking. If a group splits up the work in a way that is not equal but is agreed upon then they may be social loafing but are not shirking. The group members would all be living up to their agreed upon responsibilities but are not doing their full share of work. The only time shirking is ethical or justified is if it is something that you can not control or be prepared for. Such as if you end up in the hospital or there is a family emergency. It was not intentional and it is something that the person can not control. It would not be fair to hold the person accountable for not living up to their responsibilities.

9-29) Social loafing has been found to be higher in Western, note individualist, nations than in other countries. Do you think this means we should tolerate shirking on the part of U.S. students and worker to a greater degree thin if it occurred with someone from Asia?

The level of shirking should be tolerated the same amount no matter where the worker or student is from. One person should not be held to different standards than another. If people were held to different standers people would take advantage of that. If in a work or school environment the person that has a higher toleration on their shirking then they will use that to their advantage and not do work if they do not have to. People tend to live up to peoples expectations so if you expect people to not live up to their responsibilities they probably won’t.

Ethical Dilemma Deciding to Cheat

6-16) Do you know classmates who have cheated in school? Have you ever cheated?

I do know people who have cheated in school. During my high school years a lot of classmates cheated. I have cheated before on homework in high school.

6-17) The authors of one study noted that people feel they don’t need to be objective in evaluating potential cheaters when there are disclosures of unethical behavior. Do you agree? Why or why not?

I disagree that people don’t need to be objective when evaluating potential cheaters. I think that because your opinions of others should not be the deciding factor of whether or not someone has done something. If someone is going to be credited as responsible there should be hard facts that can prove that the person has done something. Other wise things like the halo effect, and stereotyping could cause the wrong person to get in trouble for something that they have not done.

6-18) Do you think that if we admitted it to ourselves when we cheated, we would be less likely to cheat in the future? Why or why not?

I think to a certain extent if we admitted to ourselves that we cheated we would be less likely to cheat in the future. If we actively recognized and admitted that we cheated for most people they would feel bad that they cheated and would be less likely to cheat. Unless the consequences of not cheating were worse than cheating or if they rationalized that cheating was the best option that they had. They also may try to rationalize that what they are going to do this time is not really cheating and they classify it to themselves as something else. That way they would not feel bad for cheating.

Ethical Dilemma Bounty Hunters

3-12) If you had reason to believe someone was lying about an absence from work, do you think it would be appropriate to investigate? If so, by what methods?

I think that if you had probable cause that someone was lying about why they were absent from work you should be able to investigate the employee. I think that having someone followed would be a little bit of overkill. I would probably ask other employees, check their social media, and ask them about whatever it was that they called in for. That way it would not seem as suspicious, it would seem like you care about them and what they are doing. Which you both do care about them and are trying to find out about them.

3-13) If excessive absenteeism is a real problem in an organization, are there alternatives to surveillance? If so, what are they  and do they have any limitations of their own?

One alternative to surveillance could be to ask employees why they are missing so much work to see if there is a problem with the company. In the book it talks about how unsatisfied employees are more likely to be absent from work. A limitation to this is that people could claim there is no problem. Another alternative is to have a limit on the amount of days a person can miss with out a doctors note or valid reason as to why they are missing work. The limitation to this is that they could just spread out their absences so they do not go over the limit.

3-14) How might an organization help to curb sick leave abuse through policies? How might administrators help or hinder effective implementation of those policies?

An organization could implement a limit of sick days that a person uses without a doctors note. That way it makes it harder for an employee to repeatedly abuse sick leave. Administrators could help to make sure that the policies were implemented correctly by making sure all of the employees are treated the same. It would also help to make sure that the administrators try to understand how the employees feel about the policies so the employees do not feel that they don’t understand where they are coming from. In the book it talks about how employees feel that mangers don’t get it so if mangers made an effort to show that they understand where they are coming from but make the policies clear it would help the employees understand why there are new policies.

Jekyll and Hyde


I would have a number in mind that is slightly higher than the minimum amount I would accept to work for. I would do that because you are bargaining for your salary so you know what ever the first number you come up with will most likely not be the amount you get. So you start out a slight bit higher than what is the absolute minimum that you would take. I would not go to high over the amount that I would take as a base salary. Since you do not want to come off as wanting to much that they will just hire someone else. I don’t think giving a different number than what the minimum amount of salary you would take violates the transparent culture of the company. I think that because everyone has a range of what they will want to be paid. They did not ask what the minimum you would work for they asked what you would expect to be paid. So it is not really hiding anything its not like you are not going to bargain to what both of you can agree to.


Knowing that the company engages in activities that I do not find to be something that I want to be involved with. It definitely would influenced my decision to take the job. I would not want to be associated to a business that is causing excessive damage to the environment and is using children for their labor. Especially if it was something that I knew they were doing and there were other ways to go about doing that job. Considering there is a similar job offer that does not do the same things as this business does.


Hi my name is Tiffany Kester I am 21 and live in Fairbanks, Alaska. My major is accounting. I have worked in the retail industry for the past two years. I am interested in getting a job as an accountant to either a small business or to a larger company.