Words: 1741
My thesis is a story of a dispute about a mobile phone and phone expenses between Telecommunication (a Chinese mobile telephone operation company) and me. I will use some organizational conflict theories, several types of conflicts and methods to handle with them to finish my dissertation. Telecommunication offered considerable discounts, while the rules were harsh. Staffs did not know the specific regulations, and I lost the best opportunity to undo the damage. The conflict occurred because of those things.
Finally we overcame these obstacles with a good alternative. Handing with mobile phone affairs is close to our daily life. Moreover, it includes interest between the customer, Telecommunication and its staffs. My counterparts and I were strangers originally. Then we became game rivals through the event, and after that we became friends. Describe the situation of this dispute, the analysis of the situation and evaluations for Telecommunications are integral to my paper. Description of the Situation The owner of a branch of B & you, Flavor, two staffs, Julie and Sophie were involved in the conflict.
Flavor is the boss of Julie and Sophie, and I was their customer. In August 2010, I got an admission to the university. Meanwhile, I received two discount coupons from Telecommunication (for you easy to understand, I use the B &you replacing the Telecommunication, and Flake and Julie replacing the owner’s and the staffs original names). At the end of August, I went to university and went to B , planning to use the two discount coupons. One of them is for a new smart phone with which I can use it as 1700 RMI cash, and another one is for phone expenses with which I can use it as RHOMB.
Julie, as a staff off branch of B (as most of TTS colleagues, she has a high quit rate because of low salary), told me that, with the voucher 1700 RMI, I could only pay 800 RMI and got a brand new Samsung phone whose price Is RHOMB. In addition, the voucher RHOMB can be sent to my phone account Into 24 months, 37. 5 RMI per month. This means that If I choose 68 ARM’S package (including mobile phone calls, text messaging, Internet), I can only pay 68 mines 37. Arm’s part, which is 30. 5 RMI. Meanwhile, the contracts of the smart phone and the package were for two years.
I had four years of college life. Obviously, this combination was very worthwhile. I signed a contract, paid REARMS in cash, got the phone. In the end of August, I had missed a strange call, and I did not put that In mind. On September 2nd, Julie called me to Inform me to go to B with my mobile phone. Intuition told me that something wrong happened, so I came to B with my phone and the contract. Julie told me B requested the customers to buy a mobile with the voucher in your hometown-City Changes, and to use the phone expenses voucher in your university city- Nanjing.
I didn’t meet the requests simultaneously, so I have to give up one discount. Due to the mobile phone cannot to e back, so I have to pay the whole package fee 68 RMI without any discount. That telecommunication company. And the regulation was too sudden for me to accept it. There was no such rule cited on our contract. Because it involves the interests of the owner of B &you branch, Flavor, she also came forward. She gave rise to the conflict. I asked to cancel the contract, however, Julie explained it was impossible. Because all the data about me has been uploaded to corporation, and the contract has been activated.
She added that on the last day of August, she tried to inform about it and anted to ask me if I accept it or not, but the call was not connected. We cannot comprise with each other. Flavor insisted the contract can not be cancelled. If it was cancelled, she had to compensate for this phone (this phone belonged to B &you company). At the same time, I cannot accept the full price of the bill. For a student, 68 RMI per month was expensive. And B &you are not the most popular mobile companies. My friends tend to use Orange, whose services are better.
If there had not been two vouchers, I would have not considered to use B &you. From my point of view, there are three reasons contributed to the conflict. The rules of you were harsh. Staffs do not know the specific regulations. And I lost the best opportunity to undo the damage. Julie would view the event as a big mistake, complaining about the complex rules of company. Flavor would regard the conflict as a loss in business. Apparently, the main issue was that we should we cancel the contract which the company added some rules in or not. Who should be the compromiser?
The situation was deadlocked. Clerk Julie distressed. She did several things wrong. Firstly, she was not familiar with the company policy, not following the company’s rules. Secondly, she id not contact me successfully at the critical moment when we can limit the damage. 1700 Arm’s damage was almost half a month of her salary. I could see that she wanted to escape from the situation. Flavor did not understand the actual regulations, and she asked me blindly to compromise to reduce her loss, regardless of our contract. My feelings were angry and frustrated.
At that time, another staff Sophie came over. She came up with a solution. She provided a very favorable B &you card, only 20 RMI per month, including telephone calls, text messaging, Internet. If I use this card, I still continue to use the B &you hone and SIMI card, and reach a two-year contract period. Meanwhile, owner Flavor losses can be minimized, because I follow the regulations, I only use the phone vouchers and do not cancel the contract. We have come to an agreement. After several hours’ debate, we agreed with Sophie’s proposal to resolve the conflict.
Flavor, Julie, Sophie and I became friend from then on. We chat happily when I go to B &you branch for doing cellophane’s affairs. I was lack of experience at that time, but I should say to myself for sticking to it and not compromising easily Just because the rival was a competitor. Analyzing the situation Obviously, the whole matter was an organizational conflict rather than an interpersonal conflict , as it focused on the matter itself than the relationships between the staffs and me. When Sophie supplied her free phone card, the entire conflict entered a controlled phase.
If we did not enter the controlled phase, we would fail to reach any consensus. The owner may be forced to take the phone out of me, and my friend and I may be fight for it. Flavor has run a B shop at my university for almost five years, enjoying a certain reputation. She cannot make things wrong as a businesswoman, continuously asked us to comprise. , as a student, would not be allowed to use violence to resolve this conflict. The relationship between the owner and the customer restricted the conflict, and a good proposal ended the dispute. We all wanted to solve this conflict, because we were all stakeholders.
In fact, there is no right or wrong in this conflict, and it is B complicated rules that resulted to the conflict. Flavor, Julie and I wanted to minimize our own losses. Flavor did not understand the actual regulations, and she asked me blindly compromise to reduce her loss, and regardless of our contract expressly provided. Apparently, she an be defined to be a competitive negotiator. Flavor only believed in something specific and credible, for instance, her less cost about the phone. So she adopted Sophie’ proposal, it cost her little. Obviously, Julies response to the dispute can be defined as an avoiding approach.
The avoiding approach (uncooperative, unassertive) neglects the interests of both parties by sidestepping the conflict or postponing a solutions. She was under great pressure. When conflict happened. Her body appeared compressive reaction, accelerating the secretion of adrenaline, showing rapid breath and a flushed face. She had a tendency to break down. Such reactions were bound to damage her health. When conflict was resolved, we were very satisfied. Apparently, Flavor, Julie and I will be the first three persons who observed the conflict resolved.
At the time, the other staffs would notice that. This matter would bring to our friends and family later. In this conflict, no one will benefit from our conflict unresolved, so no one would want to keep the conflict. Finally, our outcomes were good. We did not lose a cellophane or paying high-priced charges. We minimized our lost and maintained a very good staff-customers relationship. Julie embedded this fault and spent more time in learning company’s rules. Wrong interpretation of company policy caused this conflict between shopkeepers and the customer. Roles determine the ideas and behavior.
We all tend to meet our own personal goals, as an assertiveness rather than cooperativeness when faced with the conflict. There is some potential opposition between us. They are businesswomen, paying attention to their profits and reputation, and I am a student, trying to get more discount. When conflict happened, we tend to a win- lose situation. Sophie was a mediator. Bonuses for collaboration reduced the conflicts. With her help, the estimation became an integrative bargaining rather than a distributive bargaining. We accepted the new proposal and created a win-win situation.
It seems that providing a less expensive SIMI card was the best alternative to a negotiated agreement. To be honest, without the help of Sophie, I had no better way to resolve this matter. Such weakness will only make the problem deadlocked. Maybe I will consult the teacher or my parents to see if they have any good way. Recommendations The conflict was all about an up-to-dated contract should be canceled or not, including the shopkeeper Flavor, the staff Julie and the customer me’ s interests. We signed a contract about two discount coupons at first. Then B & you added some harsh rules about it.