Missouri’s Civil War Case Analysis

Missouri’s Civil War examines the dynamics of intergroup conflict stemming from scare resources within the university. Provost Ronald F. Bunn is ultimately designated with the responsibility of “preserv[ing] and enhance[ing] the quality of the university in a time of severely limited resources.” Initially functional conflict and integrative bargaining are possible approaches to the requirements necessary to cut budgets at the university. Bunn’s leadership however neglects to take focus of the issue and ultimately fail to effectively influence and control the behaviors of those within the overall structure of the institution derailing the decision-making process. In addition to examining examples where Bunn’s leadership moves away from functional conflict and integrative bargaining, this analysis also reviews other critical choices the Provost could have made to gain buy-in and commitment from all members of the university in this important decision.
The sources of conflict in this case can be found in examining the initial stage of the five-stage conflict process. This first stage, potential opposition or incompatibility, identifies the presence of conditions that create opportunities for conflicts to arise. The three categories of this first stage, communication, structure, and personal variables, all factor into the intergroup conflict stemming from the decisions being made at the University of Missouri. First, the communication between Provost Bunn and the other involved parties is wrought with a lack of communication, insufficient exchange of information, and noise in the communication channels. These act as barriers to effective communication and have the potential to further enhance the conflict. Examples of insufficient exchange of information include the outdated documents used to recommend the closure of two of the