Donna

Dubinsky & Apple Computer, Inc. Sr. No. 15 Roll No. 15093 Bipin Bansal Agarwal

1. Discuss the sources of the conflict in the case.

A conflict is a part and parcel of a running business. No business can successfully operate without having conflicts. Conflicts,
when managed properly can be beneficial and if not handled properly can be detrimental as well. To manage conflict in a
positive way, one needs to understand the sources clearly. In the case of Donna Dubinsky and Apple Computers Inc., the
sources of conflict can be as follows:

Change
Implementation of any new strategy of policy leads to stressful change, which gives rise to conflicts. In the above
case as well, the introduction of new distribution proposal was a source of conflict. It is very difficult to accept
changes as it brings with it, uncertainty.

Interpersonal Relationships
Donna was very conservative in her approach and Jobs was someone who wanted to try something new and
innovative at all stages. These contrasting personalities were bound to give rise to a conflict. When different
personalities have to work together in a workplace, it is always a possibility that thy wont blend in easily.

Supervisor Vs. Employee

A supervisor who is overbearing can rub an employee the wrong way. In this case, both Donna and Weaver were
unsure about their relationship with their new boss, which further led to conflicts in the organization.

External Changes
Though not evident from the case, but external factors had their share in giving rise to conflicts. Apple was losing its
hold in market and hence, need for new policies was felt, which turned out to be the root cause for conflicts.

Poor Communication
Lack of proper communication form the supervisors end can always lead to conflicts. Here, the new policy was
never communicated properly to Donna and Weaver and even Donna and Weaver did not put proper efforts in
explaining their concerns to Jobs or Sculley.

2. Describe the decision-making process being used in the case. Using examples from the case,
identify the decision-making biases of various actors in the case.

The decision-making used in the above case is:

First, the problem was identified by Jobs, i.e. the increase in costs incurred by Apple and loss in market share whereas
the problem identified by Donna was that of implementation of a new distribution policy and its effects on the company. Then,
various alternatives were identified like for Jobs problem, the alternative was adoption of Just in Time policy
suggested by an old friend, where as for Donna alternatives were trying to protest against the new policy and stopping it from

Donna Dubinsky & Apple Computer, Inc. Sr. No. 15 Roll No. 15093 Bipin Bansal Agarwal

getting implemented or giving the ultimatum to quit. Next, the alternatives were evaluated where Jobs found his new
proposed policy to be the best for the company and its future and Donna, after trying all she could found resignation to be the
best alternative. Finally, they both selected the alternatives they found to be the best among the available ones.

The biases involved in the decision-making process in the above case are:

Overconfidence Bias: Both Jobs and Donna are assuming their approach to lead to companys success, though
we dont have substantial evidence to support any of them, they are highly optimistic about their approach, citing
overconfidence bias.

Anchoring Bias: Jobs has taken the decision of change in strategy based on the success of the same policy in IBM.
He can be said to be blinded by he impression given to him by his friend from Federal express, and hence influence
of anchoring bias.

Selective Perception: Weaver and Donna want to pay attention only towards the distribution side of the
organization because that is the area that concerns them, whereas Jobs wants to take the decision taking only cost
cutting as the criteria in mind. This personal perspective on both ends is leading to selective bias.

Self-serving Bias: Both the actors want to take the credit for success, like Donna mentioning that they should
be proud of the fact that not a single delivery has gone wrong in so many years, whereas they want to blame outside
sources for failures, before even taking the decision or implementing it.