Run Times That Drivers Cannot Meet: Task, Process and Relationship Conflict Between Bus Operators and Schedulers After New Scheduling Software, and a Recommendation to the General Manager
[Student Name]
University of Phoenix
MGT/312: Organizational Behavior for Managers
Week 5 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The agency, employees and figures are a composite written for a model paper.
A composite regional transit agency operates 120 buses on 28 routes with about 260 operators. Last fall, it replaced its 15-year-old scheduling system with new software that builds schedules from automated vehicle location data, the GPS records of where every bus is at every moment. The scheduling department, four analysts, used the data to shorten run times on eleven routes, saving about 3% of service hours. Within two months, on-time performance on those routes fell from 81% to 72%, operators' complaints about missed breaks tripled and the union filed a grievance. Operators said the schedules were impossible; schedulers said the data proved they were not; each side had begun to describe the other as the problem. This paper analyzes the conflict and the change and makes a recommendation to the general manager.
Types of Conflict
Jehn (1995), studying work groups in a freight transportation firm, distinguished relationship conflict, personal friction, from task conflict, disagreement about the work itself, and found that relationship conflict was associated with lower satisfaction and performance, while task conflict could help in groups doing nonroutine work. Later research added process conflict, disagreement about how work is done and who does what. All three are present at the agency.
Task conflict concerns the run times. Schedulers built them from the median travel time in the location data. Operators argue that the median ignores what they face at the worst times: school dismissals, wheelchair boardings and construction detours. Both sides have part of the truth: the median is a reasonable statistic for some purposes but produces schedules that half of all trips will fail to meet.
Process conflict concerns who decides. Under the old system, experienced operators and street supervisors informally reviewed new schedules before they took effect. The new process skipped that review because the data were considered more accurate than opinions.
Relationship conflict is the newest and most damaging. Operators call the schedulers "the office people who've never driven a bus"; schedulers describe operators as resisting any change. The two groups no longer talk directly, and some operators have begun running late deliberately to prove the schedules wrong.
Why the Type Matters
De Dreu and Weingart (2003), in a meta-analysis, found that both relationship and task conflict were negatively associated with team performance and member satisfaction, with the relationship effect generally stronger. This suggests the agency should resolve the task dispute quickly, before it deepens the relationship conflict, and should not treat the disagreement as healthy debate to be left alone.
The Change Process
The software change had a clear business case, and the data were better than what the agency had before. The problem was how the change was carried out. Armenakis et al. (1993) argue that readiness for change depends on the message: employees must believe the change is needed, that it is right for the organization, that the organization can carry it out, that leaders support it and that it will benefit them. At the agency, operators received a memo announcing new schedules two weeks before they took effect. The memo explained the savings but not why shorter run times were appropriate, how the data were used or what would happen if the schedules proved wrong. Operators, whose breaks and ability to stay on time depended on run times, saw only a threat.
Resistance, in this case, carried information. Operators knew about conditions the median did not capture. Treating their objections as resistance to be overcome, rather than as data, cost the agency both on-time performance and trust.
Options
The general manager has three options.
Option 1: Hold the new schedules and require compliance. This preserves the savings on paper but ignores evidence that the schedules are not working, and it would likely deepen the relationship conflict and the grievance.
Option 2: Revert to the old schedules. This ends the immediate dispute but abandons better data and signals that complaints can undo any change.
Option 3: Rebuild the eleven schedules jointly. Form a working group of schedulers, operators chosen by their peers, street supervisors and a union representative; set run times using a higher percentile of the location data, such as the 80th or 85th, for peak periods; and restore operator review of new schedules before they take effect.
Recommendation
The general manager should choose Option 3. It resolves the task conflict with the best available data, used in a way that reflects real conditions. It repairs the process conflict by restoring a role for operators in reviewing schedules. And it begins to reduce the relationship conflict by putting the two groups at the same table on a shared problem.
The general manager should take three additional steps. First, meet with operators at each garage in person to acknowledge that the rollout was flawed and explain what will change. Second, ask schedulers to ride the eleven routes at peak times with experienced operators before the working group meets. Third, agree with the union to hold the grievance while the working group completes its work within 60 days.
Measures of Success
Success should be judged by on-time performance on the eleven routes, with a target of returning to at least 80% within three months of the new schedules; missed breaks reported by operators; service hours compared with the old schedules, since some savings may still be achievable; and the number of complaints and grievances. A short survey of operators and schedulers after six months would show whether relations between the groups have improved.
Conclusion
New scheduling software produced a task dispute about run times that became process and relationship conflict because the change was introduced without explanation or operator input. Research shows that relationship conflict is especially harmful, so the dispute should be resolved quickly. Rebuilding the schedules jointly, with better use of the data and a restored role for operators, would address the substance of the conflict and the change process that caused it.
References
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for organizational change. Human Relations, 46(6), 681-703. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679304600601
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741-749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256-282. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393638
How this MGT 312 Week 5 example is structured
The MGT/312 shelf page describes Week 5 as closing with conflict, change and a manager-facing recommendation paper. The paper diagnoses before it recommends: it separates the kinds of conflict involved, because each calls for a different response, then examines the change process that produced them. The final section is written for the decision maker, with the options, a recommendation and what success would look like. Students search this week as MGT 312 Week 5, MGT312 Wk 5 or MGT/312 Wk 5; all three are the same assignment.
MGT/312 Week 5 questions, answered
What does MGT/312 Week 5 usually ask for?
The MGT/312 shelf describes Week 5 as covering conflict and change and ending with a paper that makes a recommendation to management. Many sections ask students to analyze a workplace conflict or change effort using organizational behavior concepts and recommend what a manager should do.
What are task, relationship and process conflict?
Task conflict is disagreement about the content of the work, such as facts or decisions. Relationship conflict involves personal friction and dislike. Process conflict concerns how the work is done and who is responsible for what. Relationship and process conflict usually harm team performance; the effects of task conflict are more mixed.
What is readiness for change?
The degree to which employees believe a change is needed and that the organization can carry it out. Readiness is shaped by the message about why change is needed, by the credibility of those delivering it and by employees' sense that they can succeed.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official University of Phoenix document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.