![]() This refers to a party agreeing to the other’s demands. This would have given the agitated customer a chance to regain self-control and ensured that the sales representative also calms down before continuing the discussion with the customer. I would have separated the angry customer from the rest to allow the other shoppers to proceed with their purchases. This style reduces conflict by ignoring it or separating the conflicted parties. This would have assured him that his request would be honored when he returned and he would have left without causing more commotion. I would have politely asked the customer to return at a later date to collect his refund. This style is useful when parties want to de-escalate a situation and come quickly to an agreement by conceding something (Parveen et al., 2020). For instance, the employee could have asked the customer to replace the item rather than ask for a cash refund. The customer would have become calmer and agreed to discuss viable solutions before selecting the best. I would have listened to and empathized with the customer, explaining to him the importance of the one-month policy. CollaboratingĬollaboration ensures both parties benefit without giving anything up. This would have quickly resolved the dispute and prevented the other customers from leaving. ![]() ![]() As the sales clerk, I would have stood firm on the issue of the violated policy terms. Competing means individuals have a domineering attitude and pursue their personal interests at all costs (Parveen et al., 2020). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |