This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Introduction: The scenario I have selected for the analysis in this assignment is taken from my work experience at Primark. Primark is well known as economical clothing retailer in the high street. In this scenario there are two employees of Primark interacting with each other and have argument/conflict among them. One of the employees is a new starter in the store and the other is in-store operation manager (floor manager). The new employee has initially been trained to work on cash tills and carry out stock up activities. The two of the employees engage in an argument that is not healthy in its nature by any means. The argument leads the two in a conflict of a serious nature.
Actual Conflict: The new employee was assigned by the floor manager to stock up the towels in the shelves and code them to the new changed price from the old price tagged on them. As the price tags on the towels are old and they contain the old prices. So on one hand the new employee has to change the old price tags to the new price tags and on other hand he is also required to stock them in the shelves at the right place. The new employees started his job and later he informed the floor manager that the job was done.
Later in the same evening the floor manager put the new employee on the cash till to serve the customers. Meanwhile a customer appeared to purchase the towel but with the old price, tagged on it. The new employee informed the customer that the price as mentioned on the towel is not right and is a mistake. Further he informed the customer that prices have changed and the new price is little higher than the tagged pric. The customer replied that this being not his fault wants the towel on the price
tagged on it. The junior employee took the matter unprofessionally and did not inform the management in this regard. The customer did not agree to the new employee and asked him that he will buy the towel on new price but will be contacting to the head office about this matter. So the customer demanded the receipt along with the contact details of the head office. Although he quoted the name of the new employee with respect to the serving employee on cash till for the complaining customer. And further he uttered that floor manager has also not countered or followed up the job done by the junior employee. What was actually said: The floor manager approached the new employee and started shouting on him. The new employee defended his position by blaming to the floor manager that floor manager has not justified his managerial duties by assigning such a typical job to a junior employee where a massive room for mistake potentially existed. The floor manager blamed the new employee about legal or any kind of counter service action against the store. According to floor manager the new employee has not conducted his job well and on other hand he has completely mishandled the customer. About mishandling the customer. store manager directed floor manager to defend the situation and explain the reason behind the mistake. The new employee was afraid that if he charged less he will be held accountable for not stocking up properly. The store manager called the floor manager and informed him about the call from head office about the customer complain. But being floor manager. the new employee replied that he is not . Few days later the store received a call from head office customer care department regarding a customer complain with respect to the difference between the price charged and price tagged on the product along with the complain of customer care.
The other employees also joined the argument and supported the junior employee that he is inexperienced at store jobs and cannot be held accountable for such mistake.W is the tool to analyse the above scenario. The model of the conflict management by Thomas K. . according to him he has replied to the customer as he was trained by the floor manager. These approaches differ from each other on variation of involved source of courage and consideration. The scholar has defined the different style of managing a conflict and moving them from an unproductive argument to the productive solution with help of the different approaches. By applying the theory from the context of conflict management we will analyse the subject scenario. We will first underpin the theory (model) and later will apply it on the taken scenario. The model suggested by the Thomas is known as “Different conflict–handling styles”. The arguments lead to the conflict among the two employees to the extent that floor manager put his resignation to the management or in either case requested the management to sack the new employee. So.familiar with the situations like this and this was the first time when he has came across to such situation. Part Two Analysis: Applicable Theory: The scenario under analysis involves two of the employees arguing each other and ultimately conflict arises among them.
ultimately settling them down on results arising from the compromising situation of each other. The collaborative style is also known as assertive style of conflict handling. Accommodating: The parties involved in the conflict deliberately take the responsibility of the problem causing the conflict. is unfair on manager’s account. The parties involved in the argument acknowledge about their part in the conflict. is known as Avoidance style. Given the fact that such responsibility may not represent the actual responsible person or group for the problem. But in the place where the employee has not informed the problem to the manager and has rather handled it . Individuals or groups with such approach use apology from other individual or group as the final settlement to the conflict.Figure 1: K. Application of theory on scenario: The new employee is no doubt inexperienced in his job and assigning him the typical job such as stocking a product where he was also required to change the price quoted on them. Assertive: The scholar rates the assertive style to be the best tool to resolve a conflict and end an argument. Thomas: 'Conflict and conflict management' Aggressive: Also known as dictator approach to manage a conflict. is known as accommodating style of conflict management. W. Compromising: Conflicting parties bargain each other in order to compromise on the conflict. Avoiding: If parties involved in the conflict prefer ignoring each other and refuse to admit about their responsibility in the problem creation. They both so also agree to collaborate in order to achieve the results from the conflict rather leading it to the unnecessary argument. In certain scenarios of conflict management such approach can be effective.
Recommendation: It is evident that the problem raised from the situation is subject to the lack of responsibility and unprofessionalism from both parties. If we analyse the approaches considered by the two individuals in this argument. Both of the approaches are potentially catalyst to further extension of the conflict. Further the two employees are arguing each other in the presence of the customers and the other employees. Further both of the arguing parties have also to defend the complaint and justify the situation. is the reason behind the complaint that ultimately raised the conflict among the two. Whilst the floor manager is in the aggressive style to resolve the situation. Further both of the arguing parties have to put their head down in order to provide better counter service to the customer (complaining) and reduce the risk of such mistakes in future. Both of the parties have to acknowledge that there was lack of responsibility and unprofessional attitude that has lead the situation to such extent. He has demanded the apology and the sacking of the new employee as the final settlement to the conflict.unprofessionally. We can also notice from the scenario that on account of the beforehand mismanagement of the customer service. The only solution to such conflict is the assertive style of managing the conflict. quality score of the store is on stake. For this purpose both of the parties have to conjoin and opt the assertive style of conflict management. The floor managers demand of the sacking the new employee would have attracted many other junior employees to the sense of job insecurity. we will realise that the new employee is in the avoiding position and is completely ignoring to acknowledge that he has contributed and is responsible in the problem. . That potentially is affecting the professional atmosphere of the surroundings of the store. At the same time this approach would have never resolved the conflict.
This approach will not only prevent the argument from the further conflict but will also help the conflicting parties to retain the old relationship and serve the Primark better. K. Dunette (ed. (1976) 'Conflict and conflict management' in M.) Handbook of Industrial and Organisational Psychology. Rand McNally. D. So. .Although it would be very impractical to recommend that both of the conflicting parties on their own initiative should adopt the assertive approach to resolve the conflict. W. it is recommended that the store manager or top management in the store should intervene and should convince the employees to acknowledge and accept the responsibility for what they have done and conjoin each other to resolve the complain. References: Thomas.