Conflicts are an inevitable part of all group activities. However, in many cases, a suitable approach to conflict resolution process will provide acceptable terms for both sides. The following paper analyzes the Ugli Orange case, identifies and applies to it an appropriate conflict management theory, and offers an optimal resolution.
The conflict in the Ugli Orange case revolves around the availability of a specific material, namely a supply of a rare fruit called the Ugli Orange. Since both parties are severely limited in time, the available amount of oranges can be equaled to a non-renewable resource. In addition, the total supply that is currently available is not sufficient to satisfy the demand of both parties, since each side needs three-quarters of the bulk. The most suitable classification of the conflict in question would be the intergroup conflict since it occurs between the representatives of different groups. However, it should be pointed out that the groups in question are separate corporate entities, which is not fully compatible with the definition above since it usually frames groups as belonging to the same organization.
It is interesting to note that both parties involved in the conflict are actually interested in different parts of the fruit since the serum is synthesized from the orange juice whereas the vapor for gas deactivation is manufactured using the rind. Therefore, from the purely technical standpoint, the conflict is a result of misinformation and poor understanding of the situation on both sides rather than an actual deficit. In simpler terms, the supply of oranges is actually sufficient for the goals of both parties, and the perceived shortage is caused by the incomplete interpretation of the actions of the competitor.
According to the Filley’s conflict management theory, the conflict in question has already passed the stage of antecedent conditions, where the parties were informed about the need for a specific object and the scarcity of its supply (Kelly, 2012). The present situation can be characterized as a perceived conflict, where both individuals view the opponent as a competitor who threatens the success of the operation. By applying the theory to the scenario, it is possible to expect the onset of a felt conflict stage with the beginning of negotiations for purchase of the oranges, followed by conflict resolution (likely the failure of one parties to obtain the necessary materials), and an aftermath (the failure of one of the sides to save the victims).
In order to prevent the unfavorable scenario, it is possible to utilize one of the six common resolutions. The first resolution is competing in which each side actively pursues their interests and does so at the expense of the opponent. This is a power-oriented and proactive approach and is often utilized by individuals or groups with sufficient power and negotiating capacity. Another possible resolution is avoidance in which one of the sides willingly withdraws from the conflict to avoid confrontation. The third option is accommodation in which one of the parties abandons their position in order to satisfy the interests of an opponent. The fourth resolution is collaborating, where parties assist each other in reaching a solution that equally satisfactory for both sides. Fifth, one of the individuals may consider compromising, where some of the desired components are obtained at the expense of the others (Tidström, 2014). Finally, an agreement can be reached through negotiation, which is a combination of competition and collaboration and does not necessarily lead to consensus.
As can be seen from the information above, collaboration is the most favorable approach. Once both parties are aware of the specificities of the case, it will become evident that there is no need for a compromise aside from time constraints (e.g., the delivery of orange rind to the laboratory). Such a resolution would result in satisfactory results for both parties and is to be sought by sides of the conflict.
References
Kelly, P. (2012). Nursing leadership & management (3rd ed.). Clifton Park, NY: Cengage Learning.
Tidström, A. (2014). Managing tensions in competition. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 261-271.