Relationship Management

The correct answer is to partner with the Director to co-create a communication plan that frames the data as a driver for positive change, ensuring the narrative addresses both transparency goals and reputation risk.

This approach best demonstrates the Relationship Management competency because it focuses on collaboration, consensus-building, and conflict resolution. Rather than treating the situation as a zero-sum game (transparency vs. protection), the HR Vice President actively engages the stakeholder to find a mutual solution. By validating the Communications Director's concerns about reputation and integrating them into the transparency goals, the HR VP turns a blockage into a strategic partnership. This satisfies the needs of both departments: HR gets to build trust through disclosure, and Communications gets to control the narrative to prevent damage.

The other options are less effective strategies for Relationship Management:

Proposing a pilot release is a tactical compromise that delays the core conflict resolution rather than solving the strategic misalignment between the two leaders.

Presenting competitive benchmarking data relies on persuasion through facts (Consultation or Business Acumen) rather than building a collaborative relationship; it attempts to override the Director's concerns rather than integrating them.

Delegating editing while retaining authority reinforces organizational silos and functional boundaries, rather than fostering cross-functional cooperation and shared ownership of the outcome.

The correct answer is: 'A style characterized by sidestepping the conflict and postponing engagement with the issue.'

In conflict management theory, particularly the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument which is widely recognized in HR and organizational behavior, 'avoiding' is defined as a conflict management style characterized by low assertiveness and low cooperativeness. This means the person neither pursues their own concerns nor helps others pursue theirs.

The avoiding style involves:
- Sidestepping or withdrawing from the conflict situation
- Postponing dealing with the issue
- Not addressing the conflict directly
- Hoping the problem will resolve itself or go away with time

This can be appropriate in certain situations, such as when the issue is trivial, when there's no chance of satisfying your concerns, when the potential damage of confronting outweighs the benefits, or when emotions are too high and cooling off is needed.

The other options are incorrect because they introduce elements that are not characteristic of the avoiding style:

One option mentions delegating to neutral third parties, which represents involvement in conflict resolution rather than avoidance. This would be more aligned with collaborative or compromising approaches that involve engaging others to help resolve the issue.

Another option combines sidestepping with seeking compromises, which is contradictory. Seeking compromises requires active engagement in the conflict, which is the opposite of avoiding. Compromising is actually a separate conflict management style altogether.

The final option mentions transferring authority to senior leadership, which again involves active steps to address the conflict rather than avoiding it. This represents escalation, not avoidance.

The correct intervention is to facilitate a workshop where members map out interdependencies and clarify the operational constraints inherent to their roles.

The question identifies the root cause of the missed deadlines and resentment: members habitually underestimate the lead time required by colleagues in other functions. This is a cognitive and structural issue regarding process knowledge, not necessarily a personality clash or a lack of monitoring. By facilitating a workshop to map interdependencies, the HR Partner helps the team build a shared mental model of the product lifecycle. This allows members to understand 'why' a specific task takes time (operational constraints) and how their delays impact others (interdependencies), directly solving the bottleneck issue.

The other options are incorrect because they address symptoms or the wrong type of conflict:
- Organizing a personality assessment or a dinner addresses relationship conflict. While this might soothe the 'interpersonal resentment,' it does not fix the underlying process ignorance that causes the resentment to reoccur.
- Instituting a centralized project management office attempts to force compliance through control. It creates an external dependency for timeline enforcement rather than building the team's internal capability to plan effectively.
- Implementing a unified digital tracking system for daily activities is a form of micromanagement. It provides data on what people are doing but does not necessarily explain the necessary lead times or constraints to cross-functional partners, and it is likely to exacerbate the existing resentment.