When conflict arises between separate parties, management must act swiftly to engage the situation and find the appropriate solution to the problem. Not doing so may result in a decline in work efficiency or perhaps something much worse. In our case, David Nguyen and James Deal were two of the employees selected as part of the team for CardiCare Valve heart valves. However, them seem to be having their own issues between each other that must be resolved before they can progress together as a team. Both individuals feel that the other is doing whatever they can to either limit productivity or to harm their reputation. The following conflict management strategies should be considered when issues in the workplace surface: competing, collaborating, avoiding, accommodation, and compromising. The competing strategy “occurs when one party absolutely feels they have the authority to be right and the other party must give in regardless of feeling” (Bright, 2014). Competition is effective in the workplace when separate parties have great confidence and know that their approach could solve an issue The main problem with competition, however, is that the loser may become more upset and hold grudges against the winner. The collaboration strategy “is the win-win form of conflict resolution in which, at the end of negotiations, both parties feel they have gained something and no one feels as if they lost something” (Bright, 2014). The weakness in this strategy is that too much time is wasted because both parties must be pleased. The avoiding strategy “occurs when one or more parties avoids engaging or addressing a situation” (Bright, 2014). Avoidance could actually be a good thing to treat conflict management if the problem is not important enough to effect the goal that is to be reached. A disadvantage of using this strategy is that avoiding a situation for too long may actually lead to even bigger problems. This may also lead to important goals being missed. The accommodation strategy “allows one party to do what another party wants when a conflict arises” (Bright, 2014). This is effective when the one party knows that their approach could potentially be the wrong one. This is also good when the problem is not as important to one party as it is to another. The weakness in this strategy is that allowing the party to get their way could also lead to the wrong solution. The compromising strategy “exists when two parties try to find a halfway point for resolution” (Bright, 2014). This can good because both parties at least get some of the things they asked for. The major flaw in this strategy is exactly the same; the parties don’t get everything they want which could lead to more issues later on.