| Course | COM 220 Management Communication |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 5 |
| Paper type | Conflict conversation plan |
| Length | About 1,040 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for COM 220 Module 5
Make-Ready Day: Turning a Blame Contest Into a Problem Two Managers Can Solve Together
Student Name
Business Administration Program, Aspen University
COM 220: Management Communication
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Make-Ready Day: Turning a Blame Contest Into a Problem Two Managers Can Solve Together
At Palm Hollow, a community in Harborline Property Management's Tampa portfolio, seven of the last twenty new residents moved into apartments that were not fully ready: a missing smoke detector cover, wet paint, a dishwasher that did not drain. Each complaint went to Tasha Greene, the regional manager. When she asked why, she heard two stories. Luis Ortega, the maintenance supervisor, said leasing promises move-in dates without asking him. Kendra Price, the leasing manager, said maintenance is too slow and she cannot leave apartments empty. The two now communicate mostly through terse emails copied to Rob Delgado, the community manager. Tasha has asked Rob to meet with both. This paper plans that conversation.
The Facts From Both Sides
Harborline's standard is five working days between move-out and move-in for repairs, cleaning and paint, a period called make-ready. Records show that in eleven of the twenty recent move-ins, leasing set a move-in date shorter than five days, usually to fill an apartment before the end of the month. In four cases, maintenance had five days or more and still did not finish, usually because a part was back-ordered. Both stories are partly true.
How Each Is Handling the Conflict
Rahim (1983) developed a measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict based on two dimensions: concern for oneself and concern for others. Integrating, high on both, means working with the other party to find a solution that satisfies both. Obliging, low concern for self and high for others, means giving in. Dominating, high for self and low for others, means pressing one's own position. Avoiding, low on both, means withdrawing. Compromising, moderate on both, means splitting the difference.
Kendra's pattern is dominating: she sets dates and expects maintenance to meet them. Luis's is avoiding: he says little in meetings and complains afterward. Neither style addresses the cause, which is that move-in dates are set without a shared rule. The meeting's aim is to move both toward integrating.
Positions and Interests
Fisher et al. (2011) argued that negotiators who bargain over positions, the specific demands each side makes, tend to produce poor agreements and damage relationships. Their method of principled negotiation rests on four points: deal with the relationship and the substance as distinct matters; attend to interests, the worries and needs that sit behind each stated demand; create several options that could benefit both sides before choosing; and test any agreement against a standard both accept as fair.
| Kendra, leasing | Luis, maintenance | |
|---|---|---|
| Position | Maintenance must have apartments ready when leasing promises | Leasing must give five days, every time |
| Interests | Hit occupancy targets; avoid losing applicants who want quick move-in; be seen as reliable by residents | Do the work properly; avoid blame for problems he did not cause; plan crew time |
| Shared interests | Satisfied new residents; fewer complaints to Tasha; a community that performs well |
How Strong Teams Settle Disagreements
Behfar et al. (2008) studied student project teams over a semester and compared how teams that maintained or improved performance handled conflict with how others did. Successful teams focused on the content of disagreements rather than on how things were said, explained the reasoning behind their decisions openly and assigned work according to members' expertise rather than settling disputes by voting or simple compromise. Teams that avoided conflict or resolved it by majority rule did worse. For Rob, this means keeping the meeting on the move-in data and the reasons behind each side's choices, not on the tone of past emails.
The Script
Rob will open: "We have the same goal, residents who are happy on day one. Seven weren't. I want us to figure out why and fix it, not decide who was wrong." He will share the move-in records with both before the meeting. Ground rules: talk about what happened, not about each other; each person speaks without interruption.
He will then ask each, in turn: "Walk us through a move-in that went wrong from your side." After both have spoken, he will summarize what he heard, including the shared interests in the table. Next, he will ask both to suggest options, without judging them yet. Likely options include a shared calendar showing each apartment's make-ready status, a rule that leasing can offer a shorter period only after checking with maintenance, and stocking common parts on site. Finally, the three will agree on an option using objective criteria: the five-day standard and the move-in data.
Preparing Each Person
Rob will speak with Kendra and Luis separately the day before. With each, he will share the move-in records and ask them to come ready to describe one move-in that went wrong and what would have prevented it. Meeting separately first lowers the chance that either arrives expecting an ambush, and it lets Rob hear any concerns that one would not raise in front of the other, such as Luis's sense that leasing staff talk down to his technicians.
If the Meeting Goes Badly
Difficult conversations can slide back into blame. If either begins to criticize the other personally, Rob will name it calmly and return to the data: "Let's go back to the Building C move-in and look at the dates." If the meeting stalls, he will end it with a clear next step, a second meeting in two days with a proposal from each, rather than forcing an agreement neither believes in. Tasha will be available as a fallback if the two cannot agree, but Rob will not involve her unless he must, since an agreement the managers reach themselves is more likely to hold.
Recording and Checking
Rob will email both a summary of what was agreed the same day. He will review move-in readiness with both after thirty days, using the same records that opened the meeting, so that progress is judged by the same evidence that defined the problem.
Conclusion
Rahim's styles show why the conflict has persisted, Fisher, Ury and Patton show how to move from positions to shared interests and Behfar and colleagues show that focusing on content and reasons helps teams resolve disagreements. A planned conversation based on shared data gives Kendra and Luis a way to solve the problem together.
References
Behfar, K. J., Peterson, R. S., Mannix, E. A., & Trochim, W. M. K. (2008). The critical role of conflict resolution in teams: A close look at the links between conflict type, conflict management strategies, and team outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 170-188. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.170
Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in (3rd ed.). Penguin.
Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 26(2), 368-376. https://doi.org/10.2307/255985
Reading the COM 220 Module 5 assignment instructions
COM 220 Module 5 covers conflict management, and the assignment typically has students plan or analyze a conversation that addresses a workplace conflict. The classroom's Module 5 page is the authority; this example uses composite employees. Describe the conflict with facts from both sides. Diagnose how each party is handling it. Identify the interests behind each position. Plan the conversation, including opening, structure and ground rules. Plan how agreements will be recorded and checked, and what the facilitator will do if the conversation goes badly. Support your approach with research in APA 7 form.
How the COM 220 Module 5 example is put together
When a resident moves out, maintenance has five days to repair, clean and paint before the next resident moves in. Leasing often promises earlier move-in dates to fill vacancies, and maintenance often learns of the date late. Rahim's Academy of Management Journal article developed a measure of five conflict styles: integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding and compromising. Fisher, Ury and Patton's book Getting to Yes sets out principled negotiation: treat the relationship and the issue as two separate matters, ask what each side actually needs rather than what it says it wants, generate several options that serve both sides and judge the result by a fair standard. Behfar, Peterson, Mannix and Trochim's Journal of Applied Psychology study of student teams found that teams that sustained high performance focused on content rather than delivery and explained the reasoning behind decisions. The interests table shows that both managers want full occupancy and satisfied residents. The script opens with shared data, asks each to describe the problem from their side and ends with a new move-in rule both can live with.
COM 220 Module 5 rubric: what earns full marks
Conflict papers earn credit when they treat the conflict as a problem with causes rather than a clash of personalities, and when the plan shows exactly how the conversation will run. This example diagnoses each manager's style using Rahim, uses Fisher, Ury and Patton to move from positions to interests and draws on Behfar and colleagues for how strong teams settle disagreements. The interests table reveals common ground, and the script gives the regional manager a clear path through the meeting. Checking the agreement after a month shows that resolution is treated as a process. Preparing each person separately and planning for a meeting that goes badly show a realistic view of how difficult conversations unfold.
Common COM 220 Module 5 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Conflict papers often take one side or describe the conflict as a personality problem. Present both sides fairly and look for causes in the process. Another weakness is a plan that says "the manager will facilitate a discussion" without describing how. Write the opening, the questions and the ground rules. Separate positions from interests. Use shared data to anchor the conversation. Record what is agreed. Finally, plan a check-in to see whether the agreement holds. Talk to each person beforehand, and settle ahead of time how you will respond should the meeting drift back toward blame.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More COM 220 and Business Administration sample papers
- COM 220 Module 1: The Manager's Communication Role
- COM 220 Module 2: Audience, Purpose and Channel
- COM 220 Module 3: Routine and Bad-News Messages
- COM 220 Module 4: Communication in Hiring and Promotion
- COM 220 Module 6: Presentations
- COM 220 Module 7: Business Reports
- COM 220 Module 8: Persuasive Proposals
- BUS 305 Module 1: Audience and Writing Process
- COM 230 Module 6: Performance Management
- MGT 240 Module 4: Variability and Waiting Lines
- MGT 424 Module 2: Traits and Skills of Leaders
COM 220 Module 5 questions, answered
What does COM 220 Module 5 usually ask for?
Aspen's COM 220 covers conflict management in this module, so a plan for a conversation that addresses a workplace conflict is typical. Open your classroom prompt.
What are the five conflict styles?
Rahim described integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding and compromising, based on concern for oneself and concern for others.
What is principled negotiation?
Fisher, Ury and Patton's approach: keep the relationship apart from the issue, look past demands to underlying needs, brainstorm options that help both parties and settle on a fair yardstick.
Where can I find a free COM 220 Module 5 sample paper?
The example above plans a difficult conversation between an apartment community's maintenance supervisor and leasing manager.
How do high-performing teams resolve conflict?
Behfar and colleagues found they focused on the content of disagreements rather than the way things were said and explained the reasoning behind decisions.