Answer: Accommodating
Explanation: Every mode of conflict resolution comes with its own positives and negatives. The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode identifies five conflict styles and provides guidelines or rules regarding when each is appropriate in a conflict situation. For the situation in the question above, Mr. Chin should apply the accommodating conflict handling style when trying to resolve matters with Brad. Accommodating describes when a person is cooperative, but not assertive wherein they try to satisfy the other person’s concerns (in this case Xerox copiers) at the expense of their own (the copiers currently used by the office). The result is to give in or yield which in turn promotes peace, collaboration, harmony, good-will and reciprocity.
Accommodating doesn't come without its drawbacks which is mostly felt by the person themselves giving in themselves.
<span>The answer is "Political participation and The Internet".
</span>
There is a developing literature investigating the part of the Internet in impacting levels and styles of political participation. Notwithstanding, it isn't yet clear why the Internet is seen as a medium that can, at any rate conceivably, increment support. In addition, putting the emphasis on the Internet as an innovation as opposed to on its data and correspondence capacities flags an inclination for mechanical determinism.
The type of culture that Salix has is a market culture.
Market culture is a form of corporate culture where the emphasis is placed on the competitiveness between the <em>organization's competitors</em> and the employees in the organization.
In order to reduce conflict in the organization, it's important to encourage <em>friendly competition</em>, recruit wisely, accept feedback, and tell the employees about the importance of<em> teamwork.</em>
<em />
An example will be informing the employees on how teamwork can enhance their performance, etc.
Read related link on:
brainly.com/question/25077581
The strenghts of the Athenian assembly was that they could democratically decide on idea, at the same time this meant it was more prone to lobbying. On the other hand the Roman Senate did not have such direct democracy but favored lenghty talks about certain issues which could also be considered as a strength.
