Part 1

Scenario:

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 new employee

was afraid that if he charged less he will be held accountable for not stocking up properly.

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. The junior employee

took the matter unprofessionally and did not inform the management in this regard.

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 store

manager called the floor manager and informed him about the call from head office about

the customer complain. Although he quoted the name of the new employee with respect to

the serving employee on cash till for the complaining customer. But being floor manager, store

manager directed floor manager to defend the situation and explain the reason behind the mistake.

What was actually said: The floor manager approached the new employee and started

shouting on him. According to floor manager the new employee has not conducted his job

well and on other hand he has completely mishandled the customer. The floor manager

blamed the new employee about legal or any kind of counter service action against the

store. 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. And further he uttered that

floor manager has also not countered or followed up the job done by the junior employee.

About mishandling the customer, the new employee replied that he is not familiar with the

situations like this and this was the first time when he has came across to such situation. So,

according to him he has replied to the customer as he was trained by the floor manager.

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. 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.

Part Two

Analysis:

Applicable Theory: The scenario under analysis involves two of the employees arguing each

other and ultimately conflict arises among them. By applying the theory from the context of

conflict management we will analyse the subject scenario. The model of the conflict

management by Thomas K.W is the tool to analyse the above scenario. The model

suggested by the Thomas is known as “Different conflict–handling styles”. 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. These

approaches differ from each other on variation of involved source of courage and

consideration. We will first underpin the theory (model) and later will apply it on the taken

scenario.

Figure 1: K. W. Thomas: 'Conflict and conflict management'

Aggressive: Also known as dictator approach to manage a conflict. Individuals or groups

with such approach use apology from other individual or group as the final settlement to the

conflict.

Avoiding : If parties involved in the conflict prefer ignoring each other and refuse to admit

about their responsibility in the problem creation; is known as Avoidance style.

Accommodating: The parties involved in the conflict deliberately take the responsibility of

the problem causing the conflict. Given the fact that such responsibility may not represent

the actual responsible person or group for the problem; is known as accommodating style of

conflict management.

Compromising: Conflicting parties bargain each other in order to compromise on the

conflict, ultimately settling them down on results arising from the compromising situation of

each other. In certain scenarios of conflict management such approach can be effective.

Assertive: The scholar rates the assertive style to be the best tool to resolve a conflict and

end an argument. The collaborative style is also known as assertive style of conflict

handling. The parties involved in the argument acknowledge about their part in the conflict.

They both so also agree to collaborate in order to achieve the results from the conflict

rather leading it to the unnecessary argument.

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, is unfair on manager’s account. But in the place where

the employee has not informed the problem to the manager and has rather handled it

unprofessionally, is the reason behind the complaint that ultimately raised the conflict

among the two. If we analyse the approaches considered by the two individuals in this

argument, 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. Whilst the floor manager is in the aggressive style to resolve the situation. He has

demanded the apology and the sacking of the new employee as the final settlement to the

conflict. The floor managers demand of the sacking the new employee would have attracted

many other junior employees to the sense of job insecurity. At the same time this approach

would have never resolved the conflict.

Both of the approaches are potentially catalyst to further extension of the conflict. We can

also notice from the scenario that on account of the beforehand mismanagement of the

customer service, quality score of the store is on stake. Further the two employees are

arguing each other in the presence of the customers and the other employees. That

potentially is affecting the professional atmosphere of the surroundings of the store.

Recommendation: It is evident that the problem raised from the situation is subject to the

lack of responsibility and unprofessionalism from both parties. The only solution to such

conflict is the assertive style of managing the conflict. Both of the parties have to

acknowledge that there was lack of responsibility and unprofessional attitude that has lead

the situation to such extent. 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. Further both of the arguing parties have also to defend the

complaint and justify the situation. For this purpose both of the parties have to conjoin and

opt the assertive style of conflict management.

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. So, 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. 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.

References:

Thomas, K. W. (1976) 'Conflict and conflict management' in M. D. Dunette (ed.) Handbook of Industrial and Organisational Psychology, Rand McNally.