Chapter 16 Exercises: Diagnosing the Real Problem

These exercises progress from conceptual understanding to full applied diagnosis. Complete the Applied and Synthesis exercises in writing — the act of committing your analysis to paper is central to the diagnostic discipline this chapter teaches.

Part A: Conceptual Foundations

Exercise 1 [Conceptual] ★ Define in your own words the difference between a presenting problem and a real problem in the context of conflict. Give one original example — not from the chapter — of each.

Exercise 2 [Conceptual] ★ Explain why people so frequently mistake the presenting problem for the real problem. The chapter names three reasons (proximity, concreteness, and the illusion of quick resolution). Describe each in your own words, then add one additional reason of your own based on your experience.

Exercise 3 [Conceptual] ★ Ury, Brett, and Goldberg identified three levels at which conflicts operate: interests, rights, and power. Without looking at the comparison table in the chapter, write a one-paragraph description of each level from memory. Then check your descriptions against the table. Where were you accurate? Where did you miss something?

Exercise 4 [Conceptual] ★★ The chapter draws a distinction between contribution and fault. Explain that distinction precisely. Why does Stone, Patton, and Heen's framework insist on this difference? What would be lost if we substituted "fault" wherever the framework uses "contribution"?

Exercise 5 [Conceptual] ★ A position is what you are asking for. An interest is why you are asking for it. For each of the following positions, identify one plausible underlying interest:

a. "I want you to stop texting me after 10 p.m." b. "I want full credit on this project, not shared credit." c. "I want us to spend the holidays with my family this year." d. "I want you to ask me before volunteering my time to others." e. "I want the meeting moved from Monday morning to Tuesday afternoon."

Exercise 6 [Conceptual] ★★ The chapter's "ten hard questions" include: Am I approaching this conversation to genuinely solve a problem, or to establish a record, to punish, to relieve my own frustration, or to win? Why would these motivations — punishing, relieving frustration, winning — produce worse outcomes than problem-solving, even if the person pursuing them believes they are justified? Use the interests/rights/power framework to support your answer.

Part B: Scenario Analysis

Exercise 7 [Scenario] ★ Read the following scenario and identify (a) the presenting problem and (b) the likely real problem. Explain your reasoning.

Scenario: Keoni and his roommate Priya have been arguing about the common areas of their apartment. Keoni is frustrated that Priya leaves her things on the kitchen counter overnight. He mentioned it once; she said she would take care of it; nothing changed. He is now considering leaving her a formal written note.

Exercise 8 [Scenario] ★★ Using the same scenario from Exercise 7, identify what level — interests, rights, or power — this conflict is operating at. What evidence supports your assessment? What would it look like if the conflict escalated to a rights-based or power-based approach? What would be gained and lost in each escalation?

Exercise 9 [Scenario] ★★ Read the following scenario and identify the speaker's contribution to the conflict:

Scenario: Denise manages a small marketing team. She is preparing to confront her designer, Kwame, about the fact that he has been submitting work that does not match the brand guidelines. In preparation, she reviews the past six months. She realizes that she has approved several of Kwame's submissions without comment, even when they deviated from the guidelines, because she was behind schedule and did not want to slow down production.

What is Denise's contribution? How should recognizing that contribution change how she approaches the conversation with Kwame?

Exercise 10 [Scenario] ★★ Marcus Chen (22, pre-law intern) has been working 60-hour weeks at his law firm internship. He initially frames the problem as "the firm is taking advantage of me." Complete Step 3 (Map the Pattern) and Step 4 (Identify Your Need) of the Conflict Diagnosis Framework for Marcus. What does this analysis reveal about the real problem?

Exercise 11 [Scenario] ★★ Jade Flores (19, community college) has been arguing with her mother about "trust." Using the three diagnostic questions from Section 16.1, work through: - What triggered the most recent conflict? - What is the pattern beneath the trigger? - What is the underlying need?

Then name the real problem in one sentence.

Exercise 12 [Scenario] ★★★ Read the following scenario and complete a full stakeholder map:

Scenario: Fatima is a mid-level manager at a nonprofit. She is preparing to confront her colleague Jerome, with whom she co-leads a program team, about the fact that Jerome has been making project decisions unilaterally and announcing them to the team without consulting Fatima. Their executive director is aware of the tension but has not intervened. Three junior staff members on the team have begun going directly to Jerome rather than Fatima for approvals.

Identify: (a) primary parties, (b) secondary stakeholders, (c) the relationship context (history, power balance, relational stake) for each primary party, and (d) who is the "audience" for this conflict, and how does their presence affect what is possible?

Exercise 13 [Scenario] ★★ For each of the following conflicts, identify whether it is primarily operating at the interests, rights, or power level. Explain your reasoning in 2-3 sentences for each.

a. An employee refuses to sign a new non-compete clause the company has added to her contract. b. Two siblings disagree about how often to visit their aging parent. c. A graduate student feels her advisor is not giving her adequate feedback on her dissertation chapters. d. A tenant discovers that her landlord has entered her apartment without notice or consent. e. A business partner believes the other partner has been drawing more from their shared account than they agreed to.

Exercise 14 [Scenario] ★★ Sam Nguyen has completed Step 5 of the Conflict Diagnosis Framework — his hypothesis about Tyler's underlying need is that "Tyler may need clearer expectations and more support at the beginning of project cycles." But Sam is worried this hypothesis is too charitable and he is letting Tyler off the hook.

Evaluate Sam's concern. Is there a risk that charitable hypotheses in Step 5 become a form of excuse-making? How does the framework protect against that risk? What makes a hypothesis charitable vs. naive?

Part C: Applied Diagnosis

Exercise 15 [Applied] ★★ Select a conflict or difficult situation you are currently navigating or have recently experienced. Complete all six steps of the Conflict Diagnosis Framework in writing. Be specific in each step — do not use vague or general language. After completing the worksheet, write a one-paragraph reflection: What did you discover that you did not know before you started the exercise?

Exercise 16 [Applied] ★★★ Using the same conflict you identified in Exercise 15, complete the Ten Hard Questions from Section 16.5. Answer each question in at least two full sentences. After completing all ten, write a paragraph about the question that was hardest to answer honestly. What made it hard? What does that difficulty tell you?

Exercise 17 [Applied] ★★ Select a conflict from your own experience that you now recognize was approached at the wrong level. Describe: - What level the conflict was actually approached at (interests, rights, or power) - What level it was probably actually operating at - What the mismatch cost — in terms of outcome quality, relationship impact, and time - What an interests-level approach to the same conflict might have looked like

Exercise 18 [Applied] ★★★ Choose a difficult conversation you have been avoiding. Complete Step 4 (Identify Your Need) of the Conflict Diagnosis Framework. Then, honestly, answer the "clean hands" question from Section 16.5. Write out your answer — not to share, but to read yourself. After completing it, describe in writing how this changes (or doesn't change) your decision about whether and how to have the conversation.

Exercise 19 [Applied] ★★ Draw a stakeholder map for a current or recent conflict. Follow the template in Section 16.4. After completing it, write two observations about things the map revealed that you had not previously considered — specifically, about secondary stakeholders or the "audience" for the conflict.

Exercise 20 [Applied] ★★★ Interview someone you trust about a difficult conflict they navigated successfully. Using the concepts from this chapter, identify: (a) what the presenting problem was, (b) what the real problem turned out to be, (c) what level the conflict operated at, and (d) whether and how the person recognized their own contribution. Write a 400-word analysis of your interview findings. Do not use the person's real name.

Part D: Synthesis

Exercise 21 [Synthesis] ★★★ The chapter argues that "most conflicts that feel like rights or power conflicts are actually operating at the level of interests." Do you agree? Develop a counterargument: Under what circumstances might this claim be overstated or wrong? Use at least one real-world example (historical, workplace, or personal) to support your counterargument.

Exercise 22 [Synthesis] ★★★ The contribution framework (Stone, Patton, and Heen) says: "We both contributed; contribution is not fault." But in some conflicts, one party's contribution vastly outweighs the other's — perhaps it is 90/10. Does the framework still hold in those cases? How should a heavily disadvantaged party approach the contribution analysis without using it to minimize behavior that was genuinely harmful?

Exercise 23 [Synthesis] ★★★ Consider the following tension: The diagnostic framework in this chapter encourages you to identify the other person's need (Step 5) as a hypothesis, not a verdict. But in some long-term relationships, you know the other person well enough that your hypothesis about their need is likely to be accurate. Does better knowledge of the other person reduce the need for hypothesis-mode thinking, or does it create a different kind of risk? Develop your answer in 300-400 words.

Exercise 24 [Synthesis] ★★★ Design a conflict diagnosis protocol for a specific professional context — a classroom, a hospital unit, a software development team, or an organization you are familiar with. Drawing on the Conflict Diagnosis Framework and the interests/rights/power model, outline: - When the protocol would be invoked - What the steps would be - Who would be responsible for facilitating the process - How the results would be used to structure the subsequent conversation - What the expected benefits would be, and what the risks or limitations might be

Exercise 25 [Synthesis] ★★★ Priya Okafor's diagnostic process revealed that she never gave Vasquez the documentation standards and never had a 30-day onboarding check-in. This is a contribution. But Vasquez is eight months in and should also be aware of professional documentation standards from his medical training.

Write a 300-word analysis of how Priya should handle this dual reality — acknowledging her contribution while still addressing Vasquez's responsibility — in the conversation itself. What would she say? What would she not say? Why?

Exercise 26 [Synthesis] ★★★ This chapter introduces the "ten hard questions" as part of honest diagnosis. Critique the list: Are there questions you would add? Are there questions you believe are poorly designed, potentially harmful, or likely to be misused? Redesign the list by modifying, replacing, or adding questions until you have a set of ten that you believe is maximally useful and minimally susceptible to misuse.

Exercise 27 [Synthesis] ★★★ The chapter references "backward integration": the diagnostic process should draw on Chapter 2's Five-Layer Model and Chapter 15's position/interest distinction. Write an integrated explanation — in your own words, as though explaining it to someone who has not read either chapter — of how these three tools (Five-Layer Model, position/interest distinction, and Conflict Diagnosis Framework) work together as a unified preparation system.

Exercise 28 [Synthesis] ★★ The chapter treats the presenting problem as something to move past — a surface symptom to be interrogated rather than treated at face value. But sometimes the presenting problem is the real problem. The dishes are dirty; they need to be cleaned; that's it. How do you distinguish a conflict where deeper diagnosis is needed from one where the presenting problem is genuinely the whole story? Develop three criteria for making this determination.

Exercise 29 [Scenario] ★★ Consider two managers facing the same presenting problem — a direct report who repeatedly misses project deadlines. Manager A, after diagnosis, concludes this is a rights-level conflict (the deadlines are contractually obligated elements of the job description) and begins formal documentation. Manager B, after diagnosis, concludes this is an interests-level conflict (the employee is unclear on priorities and overwhelmed) and schedules a problem-solving conversation. Both are applying the framework correctly.

What diagnostic information would distinguish these two cases? What questions would you ask to determine which manager's diagnosis is correct for their specific situation?

Exercise 30 [Synthesis] ★★★ Return to the conflict you identified in Exercise 15. Now, having worked through the entire chapter's exercise set, has your understanding of that conflict changed? Write a 500-word reflection on what the diagnostic process revealed, what surprised you, and what you intend to do differently — both in the upcoming conversation and in how you prepare for difficult conversations in the future.