Hello class and Professor, I only get into a few disputes at work since I work with many professionals who understand our team's overall goal. That is not to say disputes never happen, but they are very limited and never require a third party. I will use my example from week one, in which I disagreed with a peer of mine approving leave for the aircrewman during critical training periods when I needed them to be able to fly. For the issue of ensuring personnel can take their earned leave while supporting our busy flight schedule, a facilitative approach would likely be used if it got to that level. A facilitative approach would fit best because both parties must see each other's perspectives and understand why the dispute occurred. My peer wants to ensure his people get the time off they need to reset after a busy work schedule. This ensures that personnel are kept energized mentally and physically, which, in turn, increases productivity and safety. On the other hand, I look at it from an operational readiness standpoint. I need these people to be at work when we have an operational increase in flying and need them there to train so we are better rounded to take on more missions. The facilitative approach would help find common ground and an outcome that suits our needs. This approach is only sometimes the best, depending on the situation and the people involved. For instance, the evaluative approach would likely be used if we were unwilling to compromise. If my coworker continued to approve leave for people and it negatively affected our readiness, then a decision would need to be made by someone higher ranking than us. My situation would likely need the transformative method. This would be best since it is based on understanding each other's motivations and ensures that we both have a major part in the decision-making process. By understanding each other, we can and did make an outcome that benefits us all. I look forward to the conversation this week