Whats Your Approach to Conflict?
Respond to at least two of your peers' postings in one or more of the following ways:
- See attachment for details
- 3 -4 paragraphs
- No plagiarism
- APA citing
Top of Form
Discussion 1: What's Your Approach to Conflict?
As you look at the Conerly and Tripathy (2004) instrument, be aware that instrument evolved from the work of Thomas-Kilman. The article by Thomas, Thomas, and Schaubhut (2008) uses the categorizations from the original instrument by Thomas-Kilman. This may be a little confusing since most of the categories are different. The styles that match are smoothing–accommodating; withdrawing–avoiding; forcing–competing; and confronting–collaboration. Compromising is the same in both models.
Imagine you have gotten into a debate with a coworker. You can tell by the rising tone of voice that the discussion has gone beyond a mere disagreement of opinion and is heading toward something stronger. Depending upon your personality, your reaction to this and the consequences that will arise are unique to you. Perhaps you will immediately back off and attempt an apologetic appeal before the situation worsens, or maybe you are of the opposite ilk and are prepared to fight it out to the last man. Even between these extremes, there are myriad possible reactions, each with their own benefits and problems.
For this Discussion, complete the conflict styles assessment in the Conerly and Tripathi article in this week's Resources. As you complete the conflict t styles assessment, please be sure to respond to each question as you really are, not as your ideal self would be. Who you are is not dependent upon context so much as it is dependent on habits developed over a lifetime.
To prepare for this Discussion, pay particular attention to the following Learning Resources:
Review this week’s Learning Resources, especially:
· Conerly, K., & Tripathi, A. (2004). What is your conflict style? Understanding and dealing with your conflict style. Journal for Quality & Participation, 27(2), 16–20.
· Thomas, K. W., Thomas, G. F., & Schaubhut, N. (2008). Conflict styles of men and women at six organization levels. International Journal of Conflict Management, 19(2), 148–166. doi:10.1108/10444060810856085
Cahn, D. D., & Abigail, R. A. (2014). Managing conflict through communication (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Bottom of Form
Assignment:
Respond to at least two of your peers' postings in one or more of the following ways:
· Using the framework provided by Thomas, Thomas and Schaubhut (2008), at what level of the organization is your peer’s conflict style most likely to be effective? Why? What else would this article say about your peer’s conflict style?
· Please share your preferred conflict style and how it would most likely interact with your peer’s. Would it be helpful to style flex to make this interaction as positive as possible?
· What happens when you interact with someone with the same conflict style as yours? Does this work for both of you, or is it an opportunity to style flex?
· 3 -4 paragraphs
· No plagiarism
· APA citing
1st Colleague – Natasha Mills
Natasha Mills
What's Your Approach to Conflict?
Top of Form
My results of the conflict style assessment show that my most preferred conflict style is confronting or collaboration, which is interpreted as high value for goals and relationships (Conerly & Tripathi, 2004). It is then followed by smoothing, withdrawing, compromising and forcing in that order. Whereas there is a significant gap in my adoption of conflict resolution style of confronting and the rest, there is a small margin between my adoption of the styles of withdrawing and compromising. Further, despite my high scores in the confronting conflict resolution style, my involvement in conflict is not always courageous. This can be attributed to the fact that not all conflict situations I have experienced have had a positive outcome. I would like to be more courageous in my involvement in conflict by adopting a more positive view of conflict situations and seeing them as opportunities (Cahn & Abigail, 2014).
My results from the conflict style assessment are accurate to a great extent. I prefer to confront conflict rather than withdraw, as well as smooth things over and compromise as opposed to forcing. However, before the test I thought that I use smoothing and compromising more frequently than confronting as conflict styles. This can be attributed to the higher value I place on relationships than goals. Therefore, the results of the assessment were shocking to some extent because they showed that my most preferred conflict style is confronting, followed by smoothing. The assessment also portrayed that I use the withdrawing style more than compromising (Conerly & Tripathi, 2004). As already mentioned, I highly value relationships hence I expected my results to show a higher frequency in using compromise than withdrawing as conflict styles and not vice versa.
Organizations contain people from diverse backgrounds with different conflict resolution styles. Thus, it is essential or valuable to understand one’s conflict style, as well as that of others, for more effectiveness in resolving conflicts. As Conerly & Tripathi (2004) put it, you can learn which aspects of your conflict style to apply in various situations, which is only possible if you are conscious of your style, while others are also conscious of their conflict styles. When this is the case, the organization will experience balance and effectiveness in solving conflict issues. “These approaches – and many others that create balance among the styles of group members – can be very beneficial in creating collaborative solutions in an effective and timely manner” (Conerly & Tripathi, 2004, p.20).
A leader or manager’s conflict style can be part of the problem because of the influence they have on their followers. For instance, when leaders and managers use the assertive conflict styles of collaborating and competing, their followers are bound to adopt the same styles and apply them in conflict situations as well. Similarly, when leaders use the least assertive conflict styles, which include accommodating and avoiding, their followers will equally apply these styles in conflict situations. The outcomes of the adoption of these styles will be those that Conerly & Tripathi (2004) associate with each of the styles. Leaders and managers who use accommodating will have followers with low goals, those who use avoiding will have low relationships and low goals, while those who collaborate will have high relationships and high goals during conflict resolution. Lastly, leaders and managers who frequently use the competing conflict style will have followers with high goals but low value for relationships. Therefore, the solution is for the leaders and managers to be conscious of their conflict styles and how they influence their followers for more positive outcomes. (Conerly & Tripathi, 2004).
My approach to conflict is confrontation, which categorized as one of the most assertive conflict styles (Thomas et al., 2008). This conflict style is associated with high relationships and high goals, both of which are critical to my success as a leader or manager. However, based on what I have learned, I have an opportunity to increase my success as a leader by being conscious at my conflict style and that of others, leading to timely and effective solutions during conflict (Conerly & Tripathi, 2004). My current awareness of this fact will critically help me cut on the time spent dealing with conflict as a leader.
Cahn, D. D., & Abigail, R. A. (2014). Managing conflict through communication (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Conerly, K., & Tripathi, A. (2004). What is your conflict style? Understanding and dealing with your conflict style. Journal for Quality & Participation, 27(2), 16–20.
Thomas, K. W., Thomas, G. F., & Schaubhut, N. (2008). Conflict styles of men and women at six organization levels. International Journal of Conflict Management, 19(2), 148–166.
Bottom of Form
2nd Colleague – Donna T
Donna Tizzano
RE: Discussion 1 – Week 4 Tizzano Initial Response
Top of Form
He
Hello Class,
Last week we learned that controversy/conflict within a discussion can generate creativity in decision-making and solve problems if it is managed correctly (Johnson & Johnson, 2014). How we approach conflict and what we value in terms of relationships and goals determine how successful we resolve issues (Conerly & Tripathi, 2004). Conerly and Tripathi (2004) have developed a model of Conflict Styles based on how much we desire to achieve our goals (assertive) and how important it is for us to preserve our relationships with those we are managing a conflict with (cooperative). After completing the Conflict Styles Self-Assessment, I identified my Conflict Style as Confronting. This Style is characterized by people who place a high value on both relationships and their goals. The outcome was very accurate and not surprising to me because I am passionate about maintaining strong collaborative professional relationships with my peers and solving problems effectively, efficiently, and timely. I believe that my involvement in conflict management is courageous because of the high value I place on maintaining relationships and not compromising my values or goals when I am in a conflict situation.
As previously stated, my results did not surprise me at all. My Conflict Style of “confronting” describes my approach to conflict management and my characteristics well. I strive to find the best solution to an issue, especially when dealing with policies and processes related to the delivery of patient care and nursing practice without taking shortcuts or compromising the safety of nurses or patients. I do not achieve this by force or aggression, but by recognizing the high value I place on maintaining collaborative relationships with others through assertion, cooperation, and confronting problems in a timely manner (Conerly & Tripathi, 2004).
There is great value in understanding each Conflict Style and to what extent people place value on their relationships with people vs achieving or attaining their goals. I am assertive and use collaboration to reach a solution that I believe is correct but must achieve this without creating negative feelings among my peers (Conerly & Tripathi, 2004). Others may find this approach to conflict management annoying since it may take a long time to reach an acceptable resolution. By recognizing the characteristics of the other Conflict Styles that people employ, I will better understand the perspectives and characteristics that my peers are demonstrating. I can then adjust my approach and choose which of my characteristics to bring forward or hold back on in the situation to help progress the conflict management and come to a mutually agreed-upon resolution (Conerly & Tripathi, 2004).
When people understand their Conflict Style and that of others, they can be sensitive to how their team members approach a conflict situation. They will then respect the characteristics each member demonstrates and the balance that each Style brings to the table. When people understand others Conflict Styles and are willing to adjust the characteristics that they bring forward or hold back on in each situation, they recognize the collaborative and creative solutions that can be achieved in Conflict Management (Conerly & Tripathi, 2004).
Thomas et al. (2008) describe the Five Conflict Styles through the dimensions of how cooperative vs how assertive a person is and discuss the problems that may result as characteristics of each Style may cause a reciprocal response by followers. For instance, leaders demonstrating low cooperativeness and high assertiveness (Competing Style) may dominate a meeting if others possess the opposite Conflict Style of Accommodation. Those possessing this Conflict Style strive for cooperativeness in meetings but lack assertiveness. Therefore, they would not be likely to share their opinions or goals with someone who is very assertive and does not feel the need to be cooperative. If there is a room full of people who all possess a Competing Style of Conflict Resolution, they are apt to have a dysfunctional outcome to their problem (Thomas et al., 2008). Those demonstrating these characteristics want to win and satisfy their own goals at the expense of their colleagues, so they will not be open to other people’s perspectives or ideas, and their peers may perceive them as not being team players (Thomas et al., 2008).
People who adopt the Conflict Style of Avoidance demonstrate low cooperativeness and low assertiveness and therefore completely avoid the issue or push it aside, so they don’t have to deal with the issue. In contrast, those who possess the Style of Collaboration demonstrate high cooperativeness and high assertiveness. Therefore, they will take time to ensure that they will succeed in reaching their goal while ensuring they do not solicit negative feelings from those they are working with, even if this takes a significant amount of time (Conerly & Tripathi, 2004). If a peer Compromises to manage conflict, they may not generate their own opinions or goals because they strive to reach a resolution that satisfies all parties equally, which may not be the best outcome.
Based on what I have learned about Conflict Styles and identifying my Conflict Style, I recognize that I must manage conflict by accepting other people’s Styles and characteristics and adjusting which features of mine to project or inhibit based on whom I am working with. In my role as Director of Acute and Critical Care, I participate in several committees and meetings that generate conflict. My Conflict Style places a strong value on relationships and goals resulting in a personality that is assertive and strives for cooperation through confrontation and collaboration (Conerly & Tripathi, 2004). It is important for me to recognize the characteristics and Styles of others, so I do not become reactive in a non-productive way while listening to their perspectives. Hopefully, by demonstrating the appropriate behaviors and interactions we will achieve a win-win resolution.
Thomas et al. (2008) share that leaders who demonstrate more assertive styles of Conflict Management are more likely to receive promotions and advancement within their organizations. As I continue to develop and improve my conflict resolution skills, I hope that I will be recognized as a leader who is proficient at conflict resolution.
Have a great week,
Donna
References:
Conerly, K., & Tripathi, A. (2004). What is your conflict style? Understanding and dealing with your conflict style. Journal for Quality & Participation, 27(2), 16–20.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson R. T. (2014). Constructive controversy as a means of teaching citizens how to engage in political discourse. Policy Futures in Education, 12(3), 417-430. https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2014.12.3.417
Thomas, K. W., Thomas, G. F., & Schaubhut, N. (2008). Conflict styles of men and women at six organization levels. International Journal of Conflict Management, 19(2), 148–166.
Bottom of Form
,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Conflict styles of men and women at six organization levels Thomas, Kenneth W;Thomas, Gail Fann International Journal of Conflict Management; 2008; 19, 2; ProQuest One Academic pg. 148
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
,
r Academy of Management Journal 2018, Vol. 61, No. 1, 324–347. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0094
INTRODUCING TEAM MINDFULNESS AND CONSIDERING ITS SAFEGUARD ROLE AGAINST CONFLICT
TRANSFORMATION AND SOCIAL UNDERMINING
LINGTAO YU University of British Columbia
MARY ZELLMER-BRUHN University of Minnesota
The authors introduce the concept of team mindfulness, defined as a shared belief among team members that their interactions are characterized by awareness and at- tention to present events, and experiential, nonjudgmental processing of within-team experiences. Team mindfulness is examined as a safeguard against multilevel team conflict transformation processes. Results from three multi-wave field studies validate a team mindfulness instrument and indicate that team mindfulness (1) negatively relates to team relationship conflict, (2) reduces the connection between task conflict and re- lationship conflict at the team level, (3) and reduces the cross-level spillover of team relationship conflict to individual social undermining. The research contributes to the growing workplace mindfulness literature by conceptualizing mindfulness at the team level and demonstrating its positive effects for team functioning. Results also contribute to research on team conflict and social undermining, showing that team mindfulness is a promising intervention to reduce team conflict and its ill effects.
If you’ve seen the Three Peat by the Bulls, the Lakers’ championships. . . then you’ve seen the magic of mindfulness. . . I use it to help build both teams, as a buffer against tensions in teams. It’s so vital for a team to have this skill and to become mindful.
—Phil Jackson
Mindfulness has been defined as “a receptive at- tention to and awareness of present events and ex- perience” (Brown, Ryan, & Creswell, 2007: 212; see also Brown & Ryan, 2003). In 1989, National Bas- ketball Association coach Phil Jackson introduced mindfulness to the Chicago Bulls. Despite suspicion among players, including superstar Michael Jordan, Jackson insisted on using mindfulness to help team building, buffer against tensions, and ultimately
unite team members. As the opening quote illus- trates, the Chicago Bulls won six championships. Later, the Los Angeles Lakers won five champion- ships under Jackson’s methods. Since then, mind- fulness in teams has gone beyond the sports domain: organizations as varied as Google, Aetna, LinkedIn, and Ford have all used mindfulness to achieve more productive teams (Gelles, 2015).
Although practitioners and the media have con- sidered team mindfulness (e.g., David, 2015; Gelles, 2015), the scientific literature has mostly examined mindfulness as an individual-level, intrapsychic phenomenon (Glomb, Duffy, Bono, & Yang, 2011; Good et al., 2016), or as an organizational-level, in- terrelated set of practices (Sutcliffe, Vogus, & Dane, 2016; Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 1999). Research has indicated that mindfulness affects employee and organizational performance (Dane, 2011), in- novation (Vogus & Welbourne, 2003), turnover (Dane & Brummel, 2014), decisions (Hafenbrack, Kinias, & Barsade, 2014), and quality and safety (Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2007). Given broad effects across various social domains, some scholars have pro- vocatively called mindfulness a “root construct” that is critical to understanding human functioning (Good et al., 2016). Others have suggested that such
The authors would like to acknowledge the helpful di- rection of Associate Editor Daan van Knippenberg and three anonymous reviewers. The paper also benefitted greatly from comments by Randall Peterson, Theresa Glomb, and members of the Work and Organization De- partment seminar and the IESE Business School Barcelona seminar. We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the WOrg Department’s Research Grant awarded to Lingtao Yu, and the Carlson School Dean’s Research Grant awarded to Mary Zellmer-Bruhn, which helped to enable and expedite this research. Authorship is alphabetical.
324
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.
a proclamation is premature because of many open issues, particularly regarding how mindfulness can be applied in organizational settings, and what mindfulness means at different construct levels (Sutcliffe et al., 2016).
Notably, “management scholars have not yet se- riously undertaken the challenge” of how mindful- ness affects teamwork (Good et al., 2016: 15; see also Hulsheger, 2015). Because modern organizations are so team-based, failure to consider whether and how mindfulness operates in teams limits conclusions about the full impact and value of the mindfulness concept. More important, without scientific in- vestigation, team mindfulness practices that man- agers already put into action could be an ineffective, costly fad (Glomb et al., 2011; Sutcliffe et al., 2016). Without evidence about its structure and function, we cannot evaluate the relative risks or benefits of team mindfulness. Developing and testing theory about team mindfulness is therefore necessary to advance both theoretical and practical knowledge about this captivating construct (Good et al., 2016; Hulsheger, 2015; Sutcliffe et al., 2016).
Our objectives are to introduce and validate a team mindfulness construct, and show its function and meaningfulness as a safeguard against dysfunctional aspects of team conflict. We suggest that team mindfulness is a shared perception among team members that their interactions are typified by present focused attention and awareness, and by experiential, nonjudgmental processing of team ex- periences. We propose that team mindfulness emerges as team members develop similar percep- tions about their interactions (Carter, Carter, & DeChurch, 2017).
We designed three multi-wave field studies to in- vestigate team mindfulness. In our first study, we develop and validate a team mindfulness measure. We designed the second and third studies to in- vestigate the meaningfulness of team mindfulness by exploring its function in team conflict. Although we expect team mindfulness to differ structurally from individual mindfulness (Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999), we propose that it has similar functions in both teams and individuals (Davidson & Kaszniak, 2015; Good et al., 2016), with present focused at- tention and awareness, and experiential, non- judgmental processing as “safeguard” functions affecting team conflict processes (Glomb et al., 2011; Good et al., 2016).
We focus on team conflict for several reasons. Team conflict is detrimental to teams; in fact, “positive effects of conflict have been largely
elusive” (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; de Wit, Greer, & Jehn, 2012; Todorova, Bear, & Weingart, 2014). Task conflict may have benefits (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; de Wit et al., 2012; Jehn, Greer, Levine, & Szulanski, 2008), but it is often tightly coupled with consistently problematic relationship conflict (de Wit et al., 2012; Yang & Mossholder, 2004). We fur- ther introduce the novel idea that relationship con- flict is problematic because it spills over to individual deviant behaviors, such as social under- mining. We explain how the team mindfulness functions of attention stability and control, and less reactive, open, nonjudgmental processing of expe- riences (Davidson & Kaszniak, 2015; Good et al., 2016), interrupt the connection among conflict types and between conflict and individual deviant be- havior, so that team mindfulness safeguards against (1) relationship conflict, (2) the connection between task conflict and relationship conflict, and (3) team relationship conflict spilling over, cross-level, to in- dividual social undermining. We test the safeguard functions in two studies involving different socio- cultural contexts and team types, offering further construct validation for team mindfulness.
Our work answers the call for more empirical in- vestigations of collective mindfulness in manage- ment and organizations (Sutcliffe et al., 2016) by introducing team mindfulness, explaining its con- tent and structure, developing a psychometrically sound scale, and delineating its safeguard role in multilevel team conflict processes. Showing that mindfulness can be evaluated in teams and is related to interpersonal processes adds knowledge neces- sary for the ongoing consideration of the value of mindfulness in organizational behavior (Good et al., 2016; Hulsheger, 2015; Sutcliffe et al., 2016). Our research also has practical implications: teams taught mindfulness may have fewer negative in- terpersonal processes, suggesting that managers can derive value by implementing team mindfulness training.
We also contribute to research on team conflict and individual social undermining, two endemic negative interpersonal processes (de Wit et al., 2012; Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002). We identify team mindfulness as moderating the task conflict– relationship conflict connection. Although team trust has been shown to moderate this relationship (Choi & Cho, 2011; Simons & Peterson, 2000), iden- tifying other moderators is vital to refining team conflict theory (Rispens, 2012). Moreover, we dem- onstrate that team mindfulness can directly safe- guard against relationship conflict, as well asprevent
2018 325Yu and Zellmer-Bruhn
a cross-level spillover effect on individual social undermining. Showing that team conflict spills over to individual social undermining adds to our un- derstanding of how relationship conflict harms teamwork, and adds insights to the social under- mining literature by identifying team relationship conflict as a contextual-level antecedent (Duffy, Scott, Shaw, Tepper, & Aquino, 2012). By demon- strating that team mindfulness can be a safeguard, we demonstrate a way in which to prevent conflict transformation and spillovers.
The centerpiece of our contribution, team mind- fulness, is a new construct. Thus, we begin by detailing its content, structure, and emergence.
TEAM MINDFULNESS
We define team mindfulness as a shared belief among team members that team interactions are characterized by awareness and attention to present events, and by experiential, nonjudgmental pro- cessing of within-team experiences. Team mindful- ness is a shared unit property emerging from team experience (Carter et al., 2017; Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001) which distinguishes it from individ- ual mindfulness. Individual and team mindfulness both include the same two elemental content di- mensions (present focused attention and experien- tial processing), but their structures and composition vary (Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999).
Elemental Content
Mindfulness involves “paying attention to what is happening in the moment, and observing stimuli without judgment or evaluation, and without assigning meaning” (Glomb et al., 2011: 118). Mindfulness thus has two elemental dimensions: (1) attention to, and awareness of, what is perceived in the present; and (2) receptive, open, and non- judgmental experiential processing (e.g., Brown & Ryan, 2003; Davidson & Kaszniak, 2015; Good et al., 2016).
The first dimension involves “sustained and con- centrated [attention] to see clearly what is arising in the present moment” (Shapiro & Carlson, 2009: 10). Present moment refers to what is going on right now, rather than future issues and demands or past expe- riences (Leroy, 2009; Smallwood & Schooler, 2015). Sustained and concentrated attention means that mindfulness involves paying attention on purpose (Dreyfus, 2011). For example, a person may realize she is eating, but not purposefully make herself
aware of her sensations about eating, or actively bring her attention back to eating if her mind wan- ders. The combination of present-moment attention and purposeful awareness distinguish mindfulness from related concepts emphasizing focused at- tention that occurs without conscious decision (e.g., absorption and flow [Good et al., 2016]).
The second dimension—receptive, open, and nonjudgmental experiential processing (Good et al., 2016; Weick & Sutcliffe, 2006)—reflects the Bud- dhist origins of mindfulness not only as an atten- tional process but as open-minded curiosity and kind, compassionate intent (Weick & Putnam, 2006). Experiential processing treats “facts as observed without immediate judgment or labeling” (Good et al., 2016: 4), and is distinguished from conceptual processing (Good et al., 2016) involving thought- dominated categorizing, labeling, evaluating, mak- ing positive or negative attributions, or assuming implications (Weick & Putnam, 2006). For example, a driver may be cut off by a car rapidly changing lanes to exit in front of her. Conceptual processing would inv
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
