read the case study and answer the questions at the bottom of it. After reading the case study, answer these 2 points. Your recommended actions and potential consequencesA summary section in which you

CASE STUDY

Get Over Yourself – Managing Personal Conflict in the Workplace

By Steven Leonard

BACKGROUND

In a bustling marketing firm, two key team members, Emily and Michael, found themselves increasingly at odds with one another. Emily, a seasoned marketing strategist, valued meticulous planning and data-driven decisions. Michael, a creative director, thrived on spontaneity and out-of-the-box thinking. Their differing approaches led to frequent clashes, particularly during high-stakes projects.

The tension between Emily and Michael began to affect the entire team. Meetings became contentious, and team members felt pressured to choose sides. The conflict escalated during the launch of a major campaign, where their inability to collaborate effectively jeopardized the project's success. Their arguments became progressively more personal, creating a toxic work environment that began to have an impact beyond the team.

The conflict reached a boiling point as the deadline approached for a critical presentation for a high-profile client. Emily insisted on following a detailed plan, while Michael pushed for last-minute creative changes. Emily accused Michael of being reckless and undermining the project's stability. Michael, in turn, felt that Emily's rigidity stifled creativity and innovation. With less than a week until the team’s presentation, they were at an impasse. Progress on the project stopped as Michael walked out of an update briefing, yelling at Emily to “Get over yourself, already!” before slamming the door behind him.

The team leader, Sarah, recognized the urgent need to address the conflict. She understood that resolving the issue was crucial not only for the project's success but also for maintaining team morale and productivity. Sarah's leadership abilities would be put to the test as she navigated this complex situation.

EMILY’S PERSPECTIVE

As the team’s most experienced marketing strategist, Emily understands the need for meticulous planning and execution in pursuing the firm’s mission. Competition in the marketing profession is fierce, and even a single misstep can cost the firm clients and, inevitably, revenue. She takes her role seriously and sincerely believes that the success or failure of the firm often rests on her shoulders.

As a result, she is meticulous to a fault. Every detail is planned in depth, every action is measured and quantified. However, her insistence on data-informed decision-making often means that key decisions are delayed until she feels she has perfect clarity of information. She never leaves anything to chance, something that has earned her a reputation of being somewhat risk averse.

She has proven to be a no-nonsense strategist for the firm, someone who considered to be incredibly efficient and productive. However, she often sees situations through a single lens – her own. Her inability to empathize with others’ perspectives has led to minor conflicts in the past and has not earned her many allies in the firm. In fact, some see Michael’s conference room outburst as something that was a long time coming.

MICHAEL’S PERSPECTIVE

As the team’s leading creative talent, Micheal considers himself the firm’s standard bearer for innovation and creative energy. As such, his spontaneity derives from a passion for emergent thinking, allowing creative energy to flow freely and unconstrained. Like Emily, he recognizes the competitive nature of the field. He also takes his role very seriously and believes with equal sincerity that the success or failure of the firm often rests on his entrepreneurial spirit.

To call Michael a “free thinker” is an understatement. He abhors any efforts to reign in or control creativity. Even when he has a set plan in hand, he’s comfortable stepping outside the bounds of that plan and “winging it” at a moment’s notice. He believes that too much planning and preparation constrains his ability to innovate and, as a result, braces against what he sees as overly deliberate planning that puts limits on his flexibility.

He has a well-earned reputation as a creative genius within the firm, a brand that he embraces freely. Maybe too freely. He also has a reputation as someone who walks into every situation with no idea what to do, someone who “makes everything up as they go.” His unwillingness – or inability – to think ahead has been the source of numerous conflicts in the past, which he typically navigates in the same manner he did in the conference room. Some see his outburst as yet another dramatic effort to swing the argument in his favor, an appeasement technique that’s grown old around the firm.

SARAH’S PERSPECTIVE

As the team lead, Sarah recognizes that she needs to take action. The firm’s leadership is not happy with the way events have unfolded and are concerned that the conflict will result in the firm losing a valuable client. Which, with only days to go until the presentation, is a real possibility. There is a lot of work left to do and two key people with outsized roles in the project are no longer speaking with one another.

Up to this point, Sarah has allowed workplace conflicts to sort themselves out, taking a hands-off approach that she believes the team appreciates. In truth, she’s reluctant to engage in conflicts, where she is increasingly uncomfortable. She’s never quite sure how to manage those conflicts and has earned a reputation as a manager who would rather avoid conflict than resolve it. This has led to several people leaving the team, a fact she only begrudgingly acknowledges. It is also a recognized weakness that has kept her in the same role much longer than her peers in the firm, who have been consistently promoted at a faster rate.

Following Michal’s outburst in the conference room, Sarah receives a phone call from the COO, inquiring about the incident and her plan to address the conflict. “The boss isn’t happy, Sarah,” he tells her. “If you can’t sort this out, we will. The firm can’t afford to lose this client over something that should have been resolved weeks ago.”

ANALYSIS

1. What were the key factors that contributed to the conflict between Emily and Michael?

2. What role did communication play in the escalation of the conflict?

3. What steps should Sarah's take to resolve the conflict and prevent similar conflicts in the future?

4. How can leaders balance the need for structure and creativity in a team?

5. What are some potential long-term benefits of resolving conflicts in a timely and constructive manner?

6. How can team-building activities contribute to conflict resolution and team cohesion?