Study of Conflict at RS2 Software Malta †MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about the Case Study of Conflict at RS2 Software Malta. Answer: Introduction Historically in all the stages of human development the rise of conflict and resolution of the same by various means has been a feature that is seen to be constant. Either in social context or in organizational context people have to deal with hard and soft conflicts everywhere. In this paper the case study of conflict at RS2 Software Malta will be analyzed. The company provides card payment software solutions to other businesses, big or small (Rs2.com 2018). The company experienced conflict when bug was detected in one of their solutions. The conflict The company had taken up an order from a client for a payment solution and customized its template software as per the customers need. During the regression test, there was found a bug which hampered the software flow. The deadline could not be met because the bug repair would need considerable time. The conflict grew at this point between the technical team whose core responsibility was developing and running software, and the project delivery team whose responsibility is to keep in touch with the customer and deliver the solution in the stipulated time. The detection of bug happened in the office hours, and the solution that was provided till the end made way for more bugs. The conflict in this case is mainly an inter group conflict where the power play of information has played role (Sherif 2015). The two separate teams of technical application developers and the team of project delivery support had engaged in conflict of who should be having the responsibility of approving the overtime of resources which was required to fix the bug. Intergroup conflict mainly happens when two groups of parallel position engages in conflict. The power play which was involved was information based. The technical team had core knowledge about the software and its solution. They were empowered because they could not be substituted in this case. The additional power source of non-substitutability was seen to manifest as well. The project delivery team on the other hand used the power source of legitimacy and rational persuasion. The delivery team was in direct contact with the clients hence legitimately they had the right to ask for the responsibility of approving the over time. They used rational persuasion to establish that the goodwill of the company will be at stake if the solution is not handed to the customer at the stipulated time. The objective that the technical team hoped to achieve is to have more time so that the bug can be fixed properly and perfect solution can be delivered, they intended to do this by using the power source based on information. The project delivery team on the other hand wanted the work to be completed as soon as possible and the solution be delivered to the client at the earliest so that the delivery promise could be upheld, they intended to achieve this by logical persuasion. The several stages of the conflict included, the discovery that the bug existed in the solution. This was followed by understanding that the solution cannot be delivered with the bug as it will hamper the work flow of the client, this is also called personalization (Allwood and Ahlsn 2015). The proposed solution was designed by the technical team which failed and increased the bugs. This increased the inter group conflict. Every conflict evolves through several stages and ultimately reaches the point where the groups entangled in the conflict looks for resolution to bring back normalcy in the system (Folger 2017). Otherwise prolonged conflict hampers the normal workflow and the problem is far from getting its solution. In this case resolution was aimed to be achieved by collaboration (Gilin 2015). The main five methods of conflict resolution are Collaboration, Competition, Compromise, Accommodation and Avoidance (Kiitam 2016). In this case the two team collaborated and cooperated with each other in order to resolve the problem and deliver the solution to the client as soon as the bug was fixed. Conclusion Every organization has to face different kind of conflicts throughout its organizational structure. In the previous days conflict was seen as overall villain in the organizational perspective. However, with evolution of organizational studies and management soft conflict is seen to be productive in maintaining the pro-activeness of the organization. It is true that destructive conflicts which may result in financial losses are harmful and should be avoided at highest priority. However soft conflicts which helps in different departments to be more reactive are helpful in productivity. References: Allwood, J. and Ahlsn, E., 2015. On Stages of Conflict Escalation. InConflict and Multimodal Communication(pp. 53-69). Springer, Cham. Folger, J., Poole, M.S. and Stutman, R.K., 2017.Working through conflict: Strategies for relationships, groups, and organizations. Routledge. Gilin Oore, D., Leiter, M.P. and LeBlanc, D.E., 2015. Individual and organizational factors promoting successful responses to workplace conflict.Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne,56(3), p.301. Kiitam, A., McLay, A. and Pilli, T., 2016. Managing conflict in organisational change.International Journal of Agile Systems and Management,9(2), pp.114-134. Rs2.com., 2018.About RS2 - RS2. [online] RS2. Available at: https://www.rs2.com/about-us/ [Accessed 15 Feb. 2018]. Sherif, M., 2015.Group conflict and co-operation: Their social psychology(Vol. 29). Psychology Press.