9. The person supervising a new advertising campaign was not sure that the team fully understood the technical side of the product they were working on. Which technique would be most appropriate in stimulating conflict?
Answer: A
Appointing a devil's advocate is the most appropriate technique for stimulating conflict.
By appointing a devil's advocate, the supervisor can encourage team members to critically evaluate the product and its technical aspects, leading to a deeper understanding and potentially highlighting important issues that need addressing.
A) Appointing a devil's advocate
This option is correct because appointing a devil's advocate involves designating someone to challenge the team's ideas and assumptions. This technique stimulates discussion and conflict by pushing team members to defend their positions and consider alternative viewpoints, which can enhance their understanding of the product's technical side.
B) Bringing in outsiders
While bringing in outsiders can introduce new perspectives, it may not directly stimulate conflict among the existing team members. Outsiders may provide valuable insights, but they do not inherently challenge the team's current understanding or assumptions about the product, which is crucial in this scenario.
C) Authoritative command
Using authoritative command would likely suppress conflict rather than stimulate it. This approach involves top-down decision-making, which may lead to compliance but does not encourage critical thinking or debate among team members, thereby failing to enhance their technical understanding.
D) Compromise
Compromise focuses on finding a middle ground, which may lead to resolution but does not inherently stimulate conflict. In the context of ensuring a thorough understanding of the product, compromise might lead to a superficial agreement without addressing underlying concerns or misunderstandings about the technical aspects.
Conclusion
Appointing a devil's advocate is the definitive choice for stimulating conflict as it encourages critical analysis and debate within the team. This method effectively addresses the supervisor's concern about the team's understanding of the product, while the other options either lack direct conflict stimulation or may not facilitate a deeper exploration of technical issues.