mgx1991

I have clarified the last question in the case for chapter 7. This doesn't change the question, but rather clarifies the intent of the question. The question asks for you to comment on how Dan could have done a better job based on the behavioral guidelines for the collaborative approach. You will find these guidelines at the end of the chapter, and these guidelines deal with the roles of initiator, responder, and mediator. I have re-written to question below to clarify the intent of the question.
1. Based on the behavioral guidelines for the collaborative approach, how could Dan have managed this conflict more effectively in the following roles: as the initiator, as the responder, and as the mediator?
There are two sources of conflict presented in this case; the first is Personal differences. Educational Pension Investments is known for being a safe and conservative investment company ever since it started 50 years ago. Knowing that being conservative puts EPI behind other investment companies, Dan wanted to hire fresh and aggressive blood to increase EPI’s growth. Thus, Dan hired Mike. Mike accomplished everything Dan was looking for, to add enthusiasm into the organization and to increase the growth of the firm. The conflict is that Mike and the senior partners of the organization cannot see eye to eye. Ever since the organization started, the senior partners have been doing their investments the same way: low risk and conservative. Mike, coming from a broker firm, uses an aggressive approach to gain impressive results. Obviously, Mike’s approach is shockingly new to the firm, which in turn makes the senior partners very uncomfortable. The senior partners have been avoiding this type of high-risk investment style ever since Educational Pension Investments has opened. Mike is also portrayed as younger, which naturally makes him more aggressive compared to older senior partners, who tend to become more conservative as they get older. These