Scenario

During the construction of a bridge we hired a subcontractor who did the cement pouring ,
this contractor had cordial relation with our supervisor whose name was Riaz, Raizs job was
basically to make sure the pouring process was kosher( basically make sure the poured
concrete was not mixed with water and vibrated properly ) , I found out that he was taking it
seriously and was actually letting it pass , this coupled with the fact that it was hot and
monsoon was coming (construction stops in monsoon season ) , so I might have yelled more
than usual due to which he left the site office for a week, Riaz had 40 labour under him , so
there was no one to manage them.
Increasing the water content in concrete mixture reduces concrete strength by almost 30 to 40
% but the subcontractor do it because it's easy to pour and put it into place , the long term loss
is catastrophic but the subcontractor doesn't care about that. So the conflict is between me
and a supervisor , the situation is that it's hot , I have to complete the process in a 4 day
period ,everyone has been pushed to their limits , he is looking out for his back (he knows if
the mixture is thick the labour will take their anger out on him ) I haven't taken that into
account , I didnt care if he gets beaten by the labour , I am looking at it from the money point
of view , more than 3 crore worth of steel is in the bridge , if the bridge isn't built on time the
steel might start to rust.
Okay another factor of the situation is that normally I conduct business in my office , in this
situation u are in the middle of nowhere , a lot of guards with weapons keeping an eye out,
irritating stadium lights , the damn flies , maybe that made situation worse.

ANALYSIS
Where was the Conflict?
1. Within an individual
It was in him (he thought he is an authoritative figure, so must be heard, and performed
dispositional attribution, by not understanding the situation in which the supervisor was)
2. Within two Individuals
Between them (he thought the manager was being a slacker by not being careful enough)
3. Within Context

In the situation (tight deadline, office condition, work environment)

Conflict was inevitable here due to 'individual differences' perhaps the contractor had an
experience of doing it that way before? (Also Monocausual assumption by Hamza)
Also he was worried about resources provided to the contractor. Being an authoritative figure
or as a leader, it was his duty to manage resources of his company in the best possible
manner. He couldn't let 3 crore of inventory to be destroyed. So conflict became inevitable.
He performed dispositional attribution when he blamed the supervisor by yelling at him.
(Since his own stakes were involved) he did not try to evaluate and understand the situation
in which the supervisor was (peer pressure and inclination to keep good relations with
contractor).
Theory X and Theory Y
Hamza made assumptions about supervisor that he is a slacker he didnt