MT340 Unit 6 Committee Deadlock Seminar Reflection Example

No Rule for Breaking a Tie: An MT340 Unit 6 Seminar Reflection on Five Weeks of Deadlock at a Game Studio

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

MT340: Conflict Management and Team Dynamics

Unit 6 Seminar Reflection

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The studio, committee and figures are composite; the sources cited are real.

The Situation

The studio's launch committee has six members: the creative director, the lead designer, the art director, the producer, the head of marketing and me, as associate producer. The question was whether to add a store selling cosmetic items, outfits and weapon skins, before launch. Three members said cosmetics at launch would anger players who had bought a full-price game. Three said the studio needed the revenue: the financial forecast showed us $240,000 short of funding our next prototype without it. The committee had met on the question five times.

My Opening Position

My notes before the session read: "We need a tie-break. Give the creative director a casting vote, since the game is his vision, and settle it this week."

The Turning Point

One classmate, from local government, asked what rule the committee had been given for deciding. I said consensus. She asked what happened when consensus failed. I said there was no fallback, which was why we needed a tie-break. She pointed out that a tie-break would solve this vote but not the next one, and that a committee told to reach consensus with no fallback had been set up to deadlock on any question that split it evenly.

The point landed because it was about the rule, not the question. I had been treating the deadlock as a disagreement about cosmetics. It was also a process problem. Vroom (2000) mapped several ways a leader can reach a decision, from deciding alone to letting the group decide, and matched each to conditions such as the need for commitment and the time available, and that consensus is only one of several legitimate processes. Our committee had been given one process for every decision, regardless of fit.

The committee was not stuck because it disagreed; it was stuck because it had been told to agree and given no way to finish if it could not.

Two Proposals From the Room

The first proposal was to split the question. Instead of one vote on cosmetics at launch, the committee could decide separately whether to build the store, when to open it and what to sell. Several members might agree to build it now and open it three months after launch, which could satisfy both concerns.

The second proposal was to agree criteria before options. Kaner (2014) describes how groups reach durable decisions by first agreeing what a good outcome looks like, then generating options and only then deciding. A classmate suggested the committee agree three criteria, player trust, funding the prototype and launch reviews, before discussing any version of the store.

What I Took Back

At the next committee meeting, I proposed a decision rule for the future: the committee seeks consensus for two meetings; if it fails, the creative director decides after hearing each member's view and explaining his decision in writing. Fisher et al. (2011) note that agreeing on fair procedures in advance makes outcomes easier to accept. The committee adopted the rule. We then split the cosmetics question. Five of six members agreed to build the store before launch and open it ninety days later, selling cosmetics only.

Why I Had Missed It

I had missed the process problem because I was inside the argument. I had a view on cosmetics, and every meeting felt like a chance to persuade the other side. Looking for a tie-break was a way to win, not a way to decide. The classmate had no view on cosmetics at all, which let her see the committee as a structure rather than a debate. I also noticed that none of the six of us had ever asked how the committee was supposed to finish. We had all assumed someone else knew.

What Remains Unresolved

The art director, who voted against, still feels the decision was made for financial reasons and that the store will change how players see the game. The rule did not change her view; it changed how the decision was made. I also do not know whether ninety days is long enough. Those are questions the committee can now decide, rather than argue about indefinitely.

What I Learned

I came to the seminar wanting a way to end one argument. I left with a way to end arguments in general, which is more useful and less dramatic. I also learned that the questions most likely to change my thinking come from people outside my field, who see the structure of a problem because they do not care about its content.

References

Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in (3rd ed.). Penguin.

Kaner, S. (2014). Facilitator's guide to participatory decision-making (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Vroom, V. H. (2000). Leadership and the decision-making process. Organizational Dynamics, 28(4), 82-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616(00)00003-6