PONTIFICA UNIVERSIDAD JAVERIANA CALI

MAESTRIA EN GERENCIA DE ORGANIZACIONES DE SALUD

TEORIA ORGANIZACIONAL Y ENFOQUE GERENCIAL

ENSAYO
MASTERING THE THREE C´s
(Constructive Conflict, Consideration, Closure)

PRESENTADO POR
HOLMES MAURICIO MENDEZ LICONA

FECHA:
08 DE MAYO DE 2019
Review Article / Articulo de Revisión

MASTERING THE THREE C´s (Constructive Conflict, Consideration, Closure)

Analyzing the change from the Advocacy to the Inquiry Perspective

By Holmes M Mendez L 1

ABSTRACT

When the moment of taking decisions is near, the leaders must be prepared for assume the trial.
Two ways can be identified, and those depends of the perspective taken by the leader. The first try
to approach to the conflicts based on the passion expressed by the business man, compiled with
the experience, history and success of previous decisions. Second way, show the option which
include a formal analysis, including rigorously construction of proposals, involve teams and open
the possibility of organizational development.

Passing through the constructive conflict, in both ways; cognitive and affective with equilibrated
dose of every one, arriving to the Structured Debate that show us the Point – Counterpoint and
Intellectual watchdog techniques, going to the Consideration step when the leader could appears
as a hero or a dictator depending the perception of fairness, and finally the closure step that can
be tricky if the leader end deliberations in the wrong time.

For the most enthusiastic, the decisions take in the Cuban Missile Crisis and The Bay of Pigs is a
perfect example of the process and could be reviewed ahead.

Key Words: Advocacy, Inquiry, Conflict Resolution, Debate, Closure

1
Médico Especialista en Administración en Salud, Maestría en Gerencia de Organizaciones de Salud,
Universidad Javeriana, Cali (Colombia)
LOOKING THE WAY

There are many ways to make a decision, but this text allows us to review a proposal about how to
deal with this process in a technically successful way to avoid deviations and even monumental
failures. Table 1 2

From a theoretical point of view it should be clarified that even though the decision-making
process is well planned, there is always a critical point that depends on the leader's ability to know
when to intervene and progress or slow down the process.

It can be said that the fundamental difference between the perspectives of the advocacy versus
the Inquiry, is that the first can be strongly influenced by the experience of the advocate, including
their successes and defeats, maximizing assumptions and even dismissing truths to be clouded by
the passion.

The perspective of the inquiry, allows to look for multiple forms of approach, analysis, knowledge
and decision of the same proposal and therefore does not depend on an individual vision, but it
can be faced in a group. This allows a successful leadership to be exercised, because it allows to
exhibit a concept of justice, or at least to project a similar image.

Even when the leaders take the right choices, trying to run in the way they know, the group can be
surprised by the kind of the decision, because could appear based in the advocacy perspective if
there is no items to evaluate from the perspective of inquiry.

Table 1.

In other words, the leaders must be the hero of the decision, with the responsibility of binding all
opinions, concepts, ideas; establishing a cooperative workgroup, avoiding the individual
assumption and generating focused discussions to open the inquiry perspective of thinking.

2
What you Don’t Know about making decisions. Harvard Business Review Article. Page 4
Finally, the decision process must be started, from the inquiry perspective with these steps:

Constructive Conflict. Cognitive and affective form

Consideration. Convey openness, Listen attentively and Explain the rationale behind your decision

Closure. Early or Late.

KEEP WALKING

The most powerful way to aboard a constructive conflict is open the frames for a theoretical
approach, looking for a debate with deep concepts and possible resolutions to keep in mind. The
questions must be launched to stimulate the group thinking, avoiding defensive language and
trying to regroup individuals to pursuit different interest with a final goal. In this process, the role
change can be an excellent tool to enhance the perspective from different job positions.

The combination of affective conflict and cognitive conflict make an exceptional opportunity for
the leader to show organize his team and rise them to a productive thinking based on logic, well
framed responses and creative questions. Finally, even if you keep an eye over the topics, looking
for control them in all time, there is always a risk the conflict turns into a personal fight. Table 2 3

Table 2

3
What you Don’t Know about making decisions. Harvard Business Review Article. Page 5
When the decision is take by the leader, a process follows in which he must show that it was taken
considering all the opinions and that each was given the necessary importance to decide. This
moment is very important, because could generate a fair or an obligated perception, stimulating a
sensation of resentment and frustration.

This consideration moment, must be perfected during the taking decision process and not
evidence at the end. The leader must show convey, active listen and finally explain why and how
decide, based on the group concepts.

The closure episode is a critical point, because the wrong approach can cause dissension, but the
leader could avoid this, showing the process was hard, because he had to take all the proposals
and construct a concept to decide. The decision announcement must be direct, but with the total
consideration of the data based approach.

SAYING GOOD BYE

This article review, permits everybody take a look of the right process of making decisions, and
avoid the passionate errors that could destroy a group.

The aperture to all the topics during the process enhance the capabilities of the leader an show
him as a business hero, trying to conglomerate the group concepts, give recognition to individuals
and achieve a final moment of final decision based in a cognitive process.

There are many examples in which the leader made decisions based on a non-investigative and
more passionate approach, which generated responses at multiple levels of their organizations
and could even generate conflicts greater than the one that was tried to solve. (The bay of pig and
Cuban missile crisis) 4

4
What you Don’t Know about making decisions. Harvard Business Review Article. Page 7
BIBLIOGRAFIA
1. David A. Garvin and Michael A Roberto. What you don’t know about making decisions.
Harvard Business Review. September 2001
2. Kathleen M. Eisenhardt, Jean L. Kahwajy, and L.j. Bourgeois III. Harvard Business Review.
July – August 1997.
3. Ram Charan. Conquering a culture of indecision. Harvard Business Review. April 2001