The following example is based on a strategy game.
A is the founder of a particular team within the stages of gameplay. He has painstakingly recruited a number of singaporean players to join this team in the game, which caters to international play. As founder, he chooses a small number of players to help him run his team.
Before long, A has other real life issues to attend to, and so cannot actively manage the group. The rest of the management team continue to work. However, A retains his position as the founder and requests regular updates on the situation (We all know how addictive online games can be). A has not been playing with the group for a few weeks, but continues to pressure the leadership in giving him regular reports. Unable to cope with his lack of participation and demanding requests, the group, represented by member B, confronts him.
A argues that he was the one who formed the team, hence retaining the right to know all internal workings. B criticises A for being too dictating, and A immediately threatens to delete all the game accounts of the group. Both sides turn sour, A refuses to listens anymore, leaves the group and ends all communication.
You are a mutual friend of both A and B, and you understand how important this game is to both parties, hence why they're so uptight about this. They have both been friends with each other for a long time, and you wish to help them get back on speaking terms. How would you approach this problem?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Annie,
ReplyDeleteI think that as a middle man i would have to play the role by resolving the conflict between both A and B by asking them to meet up and talk about the problem head on.Both of them are not wrong.They just have their own opinions about the problem.Bargaining is an excellent technique when both parties cannot find common ground. Often a third party, such as a friend, is needed to help compromise.Compromise involves give and take on both sides.So as a neutral third party i think bargaining is a good way to solve the conflict between my 2 friends.
Hi Annie
ReplyDeleteYour post is abit similar to Joon Wai post just different plot of the story. I think that you should not use the name A for a person because it confuse me when i reading. A word has it own meaning so will be little bit confusing for me.
For this problem right, i think A cant handle the criticism and hot temper.He have bad EQ. For B, i think he is doing the right thing, he should tell A that he been putting too much pressure on them. So overall story, A is a bad guy. As their mutual friend "C", i will calm A emotion because A emotion will easily overcome him. After he has been calm down, i will try let A understand the situation of B and his team member. If A admit that he is wrong then i will ask A and B out for a drink, and let them settle themselves.If A still don't admit that he is wrong, then i will introduce CG1413 module to him and let him learn what good communication are. Hopefully the problem can be solve if A manage to calm down.
Hey Anni,
ReplyDeleteI have to say it is a rather interesting way to write a blog post this way. But anyways, the situation you depicted in your post is certainly not just restricted to online games. Often in real-life, we find ourselves in conflicts whereby both parties hold firm to the own stand, unwilling to give way to either party.
In my opinion, the only way for such situations to be resolved is for both parties to take a step back each. Analyze the situation with a cool head and both actively participate in a discussion for a solution, while not flaring up.
In your situation, A feels that as the founder, he deserves the right to be respected and for the rest of the group to update him. But perhaps in B's point of view, B finds it a hassle to constantly update A, because A is not even actively participating. Hence if both were to discuss the problem calmly, they could maybe reach a compromise. Perhaps that B could still update A on the group's development, but less frequently, and A can make the effort to participate in the group's activities more.
Hi Anni,
ReplyDeleteAnything that we have invested a lot of time and effort in will undoubtedly be very close to our hearts. Thus I understand A's unwillingness to relinquish his/her leadership position within the group. But threatening to delete all the accounts is certainly not the way to go.
Firstly, i feel A has to understand that the team has continued to progressed during his absence and things can no longer be like what it used to be. If he/she can no longer put in the effort for the team, he should not expect the team to do the same for him.
B on the other hand should give A more time to come with terms with the current situation and should try to understand A's feelings better. Confronting A so soon is not a good idea as it would only make A more defensive.
As a friend of both A and B, I would continue to remind both of them that they have been friends for a long time and that losing a friendship over something so trivial is not worth it. Maybe if both parties are willing, i could arrange a lunch or dinner together so that things can be sorted out face to face.
Regards
Corn