The ability to navigate workplace relationships can make or break your career. Though it's easy to view them as simply negative or positive, virtually all are a mix of both and require careful thought to manage. The trick is to step back and dispassionately analyze what type of relationship you're in--conflict, competition, independence, cooperation, or collaboration. Where on that spectrum you and your colleague fall will be determined by the degree to which your interests align--or clash. The more in sync interests are, the more positive a relationship is. Each type calls for a different set of tactics, but even the negative relationships, if handled appropriately, can still yield rewards.

Despite the hierarchical power structures in the military and government, as they reach more senior levels, leaders routinely operate in peer-to-peer teams. These environments require the ability to negotiate complex group dynamics-a skill which often goes undeveloped in typical hierarchies. Groups that succeed over time have three things in common: (1) they meet their performance goals, (2) their members feel satisfied that they are learning/benefiting from being a part of the team, and (3) the process the team uses to collaborate sets it up for future success. Recent research, however, suggests that only about 25% of teams meet these criteria. The rest of the teams typically experience less-than-ideal processes and a decline in performance and/or satisfaction. This technical note explores what goes wrong with teams, the ways in which conflict can both help and hurt a team, and how a team can harness the benefits and limit the liabilities of conflict.

Hasn't everyone at some point felt as if the universe was conspiring against his or her success? This case narrative tracks the story of Emmett Taylor, an operations manager for a bottling company, as a snow and ice storm bears down on his southeastern U.S. plant. Taylor is already plagued by stress caused by all facets of his life-family, work, and personal health-and this storm is no exception. The story offers an opportunity to discuss time, energy, and priority management; individual behavior from a type-A personality; work-life balance; organizational behavior; and leadership. This case is a suitable substitution for the classic best-selling Darden case "John Wolford" (UVA-OB-167).

Hasn't everyone at some point felt as if the universe was conspiring against his or her success? This case narrative tracks the story of Emmett Taylor, an operations manager for a bottling company, as a snow and ice storm bears down on his southeastern U.S. plant. Taylor is already plagued by stress caused by all facets of his life-family, work, and personal health-and this storm is no exception. The story offers an opportunity to discuss time, energy, and priority management; individual behavior from a type-A personality; work-life balance; organizational behavior; and leadership. This case is a suitable substitution for the classic best-selling Darden case "John Wolford" (UVA-OB-167). This disguised case sets the stage for the accompanying B case (UVA-C-2368), which takes place directly after Regina releases its earnings.

Hasn't everyone at some point felt as if the universe was conspiring against his or her success? This case narrative tracks the story of Emmett Taylor, an operations manager for a bottling company, as a snow and ice storm bears down on his southeastern U.S. plant. Taylor is already plagued by stress caused by all facets of his life-family, work, and personal health-and this storm is no exception. The story offers an opportunity to discuss time, energy, and priority management; individual behavior from a type-A personality; work-life balance; organizational behavior; and leadership. This case is a suitable substitution for the classic best-selling Darden case "John Wolford" (UVA-OB-167).

Most talented executives can recognize when an acquisition has strategic or financial benefits, and in this case, the decision to be acquired was an appropriate exit strategy for a successful start-up. Peter Street's start-up had been growing quickly and was building a reputation for reliability in a booming industry when a Japanese firm offered to pay a premium for the U.S. firm. Having done business in Japan (and extensively with the acquiring company) before the sale of his company, Street entered the acquisition with enthusiasm. As part of the deal, Street's former company would continue to operate in the United States as a division of its parent company and Street would remain as CEO. A few months into the transition, however, Street discovered a huge difference between working with and working for the Japanese firm. Cultural norms for confronting seemingly small problems quickly became bigger operational issues, and Street experienced a growing dichotomy between corporate (in Japan) and his division (in the United States). This case focuses on the challenges of implementing a cross-border acquisition.

Successful teams have three things in common: (1) they meet their performance goals, (2) their members feel satisfied that they are learning/benefiting from being a part of the team, and (3) the process the team uses to collaborate sets it up for future success. Recent research, however, suggests that only about 25% of teams meet these criteria. The rest of the teams typically experience less-than-ideal processes and a decline in performance and/or satisfaction. This technical note explores what goes wrong with teams, the ways in which conflict can both help and hurt a team, and how a team can harness the benefits and limit the liabilities of conflict.

Culture is a highly complex set of learned behaviors that function at multiple levels. Cultural challenges go beyond overcoming language differences and navigating different national legal systems. Cultural values interlock with many national systems, which influence the way business is developed and how deals are made. Managers who understand how to navigate such differences are in high demand.

How we voice our disagreements may say a lot about our cultural influences. Confrontations are not always angry fights; sometimes they happen when there is a need to deliver bad news, or to say no to what another person is asking of you. Many managers ask questions such as "What is the right way to say no to a boss?" "What is the right way to challenge or oppose someone else's opinion?" "What is the right way to deliver criticism to a colleague?" The answer to these questions depends to an extent on the context. And one important element of context is whether the parties are from direct- or indirect-confrontation cultures. This technical note offers insight and research on distinguishing the difference between the two and strategies to pick up on and appropriately interpret expressions of confrontation in a way that allows you to respond effectively.

The Global Networks Company (GNC), headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts, made its global footprint in India in 1994 by establishing a presence in Bangalore. Although mainly a sales support office, GNC grew name recognition from its contracts with India's government to help build nationwide networks. Not quite 20 years later, GNC decided to further invest in India and tapped a manager from the Boston office, Jim Notrika, to establish and then manage GNC's first global software center in Mumbai. Split between Mumbai and Boston, the project team successfully completed several minor projects, but only months into its first major project, the team was struggling to meet deadlines. Blame was being passed in both directions, and when three talented engineers in Mumbai quit, Notrika makes an emergency trip to Mumbai to better understand the problem. This case describes three common cross-cultural communication obstacles in teams: a preference for direct versus indirect confrontation of problems; a clash of collectivist versus individualistic cultural values related to reporting bad news or giving negative feedback; and different expectations of team leaders based on power-distance values.

This case is used in Darden's core Leading Organizations course and is appropriate for MBA, Executive MBA, GEMBA, and executive education programs. The manager of a baby product company's global customer support center observes friction among her staff about the only non-American on the team, whom the others accuse of increasing their call response rate time-thus effectively lowering their pay. When conflict arises on a multicultural team, to what extent can it be attributed to cultural differences and when should a manager become involved?

You are leading a negotiating team for your company. When you sit down with the other party, someone on your side of the table blurts out: "Just tell us - what do we need to do to get more of your business?" And in that moment, you know you've lost the upper hand. Gaffes like this are more common than most businesspeople would care to admit, management professors Brett, Friedman, and Behfar have found in their research. Even though team members are all technically on the same side, they often have different priorities and imagine different ideal outcomes: Business development just wants to close the deal. Finance is most concerned about costs. Legal is focused on patents and intellectual property. The authors recommend taking four steps, either singly or in tandem, to align those goals: Map out each person's priorities, work out conflicts directly with departments, employ a mediator if that doesn't work, and use data to resolve differences. Once you are all on the same page, you can take steps to make sure everyone is coordinated during the negotiations themselves. Try simulating the negotiation beforehand, assigning roles to team members that take advantage of their strengths, and establishing the signals you will use to communicate with one another during the session. The payoff from working as a cohesive group is clear. With access to greater expertise and the ability to assign members to specialized roles, teams can implement more complex strategies than a sole negotiator could ever pull off.

Multicultural teams offer a number of advantages to international firms, including deep knowledge of different product markets, culturally sensitive customer service, and 24-hour work rotations. But those advantages may be outweighed by problems stemming from cultural differences, which can seriously impair the effectiveness of a team or even bring it to a stalemate. How can managers best cope with culture-based challenges? The authors conducted in-depth interviews with managers and members of multicultural teams from all over the world. Drawing on their extensive research on dispute resolution and teamwork and those interviews, they identify four problem categories that can create barriers to a team's success: direct versus indirect communication, trouble with accents and fluency, differing attitudes toward hierarchy and authority, and conflicting norms for decision making. If a manager--or a team member--can pinpoint the root cause of the problem, he or she is likelier to select an appropriate strategy for solving it. The most successful teams and managers, the authors found, dealt with multicultural challenges in one of four ways: adaptation (acknowledging cultural gaps openly and working around them), structural intervention (changing the shape or makeup of the team), managerial intervention (setting norms early or bringing in a higher-level manager), and exit (removing a team member when other options have failed). Which strategy is best depends on the particular circumstances--and each has potential complications. In general, though, managers who intervene early and set norms; teams and managers who try to engage everyone on the team; and teams that can see challenges as stemming from culture, not personality, succeed in solving culture-based problems with good humor and creativity. They are the likeliest to harvest the benefits inherent in multicultural teams.