The compromising strategy is moderate assertiveness and moderate cooperation. Using the compromising strategy there is no clear winner or loser. The compromising strategy is defined as “giving up more than you want”. This strategy is used as a temporary solution to the conflict not a permanent one, which could create a bigger problem later. The compromising strategy is good for when there are time constraints and the conflict needs to be resolved fast. The collaborative strategy is high assertiveness and high cooperation.
The collaborative strategy finds an integrative solution to the ideas presented to come up with a plan to achieve everyone’s goals. The strengths are simple; it is a “win-win” for all the parties involved. This allows everyone to merge his or her perspectives to come up with a permanent solution to the conflict. Ideally this is the best strategy to use because it gets everyone involved in the conflict solution and the conflict is resolved with a greater amount of satisfaction. The only weakness I can think of is when there are time constraints involved.
It will take some time to gather everyone’s thoughts and implement a plan, so if there is urgency to solve the conflict before a short deadline you might run into some problems. Avoiding strategy is low assertiveness and low cooperation. This strategy is basically avoiding all conflicts. The only strength I can possibly think of is that if you are certain, you cannot win the conflict and you avoid it to live another day. The avoiding strategy is probably the least favorable because conflicts never get resolved. The competing strategy is high assertiveness and low cooperation.
The competing strategy is when a person looks to satisfy his or her interests above all without any care of the other parties involved. This strategy is best used when quick action needs to take place or when an unpopular decision needs to be made to solve a conflict. The problem with this strategy is there are no inputs from other parties, which could leave them feeling upset, hurt, or resentful. To solve the conflict between David and James, I would use the collaborative strategy because it allows everyone involved sharing their perspective.
So far no one has spoken to each other personally and everything is based off of here say, which resulted in the current conflict. To resolve this conflict I would set up a time mediate with James, David, and their supervisors in a face-to-face meeting to come up with possible solutions as a group. Everyone would be able to state his or her own perspective on what the actual problem is, so the group can collectively come up with a solution that will make everyone happy. This strategy will be used to create a harmonious work environment between the two.
If collaborative strategy does not work, then my alternative to use would be the competing strategy. Which is used when quick action needs to be taken and when that unpopular decision needs to be made. If David and James were unable to come up with a possible solution collectively, I as a manager would need to make that decision for them. I would write down what each person has to say and make the final decision myself to quickly resolve the conflict. There could be some possible challenges like gender, how people feel about themselves, expectations, situation, position, and communication to name a few.