Principal-Agent

My first job, which I actually previously discussed in a different blog post and where I'm still currently employed when I go back home during breaks, is a restaurant where I cashier, deliver food, clean, etc. There I witnessed many conflicts where the customer said they got the wrong order or something was done incorrectly if they specified how they want their order made. As a worker for the restaurant I am an agent to both the restaurant and the customer. My job is to please the customer to the best of my ability, and to help the restaurant maintain sales by presenting a welcoming, friendly and polite image to the customers. Since I sometimes delivered the food I had many one on one confrontations with the customers when they claimed their order was wrong. Being the only representative of the restaurant there, I would be put on the spot as to why the order was wrong as if I was the one that cooked the food. As I experienced more and more of these situations (although it was a small percentage of all orders) I started crafting a system to avoid conflict. Apologizing and asking what is wrong, as any logical worker would, is always my first step. This allows me to please the customer since I make the customer feel like they are being heard and appreciated, while presenting a great image for the restaurant since we obviously did something wrong (the customer is always right, not really but that is beside the point). After gathering information on how the order was messed up I proceed to call the restaurant and inform them about how the order was wrong exactly. As an agent to both the customer and the restaurant, fixing the mistake that we made is key to making both principals happy; the customer gets what they want and the restaurant fixes a mistake that will pay off in the long run. After informing my coworkers I then relay the response back to the customer to assure them that they will get what they want (we always cater to the customer so no matter what the restaurant will send the right order even if the customer was wrong, which they sometimes are). Doing these three simple steps allows me to defuse conflict and please the two principals.
There may or may not be a different way to resolve this issue but through trial and error I have crafted what works best for me. Sure I could tell the customer to call the restaurant and allow them to handle the situation, but as an agent to both the restaurant and customer it is my job to make things easy for the customer and portray a great image of the restaurant. Doing these steps allows me to fulfill both of these requirements. 
If I chose to only satisfy the restaurant by not listening to the customer and walking away when they are not pleased (which is not even possible since making one sale is less valuable than keeping a customer and maintaining a good image) I would fail as an agent because I would not be fulfilling the requirements I previously mentioned. On the other hand, only satisfying the customer is not even an option or feasible for that matter because the restaurant would need to know about the issue regardless. All in all, yes I could fail as an agent if I chose to satisfy one master, but only if I was to choose satisfying the restaurant.

Always Sunny Conflict

I am a huge fan of the FXX series It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia. In this comedy show there is an episode where "The Gang" holds a fake trial to determine who was at fault for ruining the interior of Dennis' car, Dennis or Frank. The problem began when Dennis was driving his car while eating cereal at red stop lights. Frank on the other hand was driving while listening to his roommate Charlie's road directions on a tape as if it was a GPS telling him where to go. Frank started to lose patience and was unable to understand the directions on the tape he was listening to and starting driving towards Dennis from behind. At this point Dennis is eating his cereal because the stop light was red and about 5 seconds later Frank rear ends Dennis making him spill his cereal all over his car.
From Dennis' perspective he was doing nothing wrong since he was driving like a responsible driver in his eyes since he would only eat his cereal when fully stopped. Even though that is still irresponsible, he was unable to see that and admit to the irresponsible nature of his actions. On the other hand, Frank thinks he should not be held accountable for ruining the interior of Dennis' car since to him Dennis was clearly being irresponsible for eating while stopped even when Frank was the one that rear ended Dennis. As one can see, both people were unable to see the other person's point of view so when they came back to the bar they own, "The Gang" (which consists of Charlie, Mac, Dennis, Dee, and Frank) decide to hold a trial in order to handle things internally.
As the trial commenced, Charlie decided to be Frank's lawyer while Dee, Dennis' twin sister, decided to be Dennis' lawyer and Mac was the self-appointed judge. However, the reason she wanted to be his lawyer was because she wanted to set a precedent for taking responsibility when someone ruins someone else's car since "The Gang" has ruined/destroyed a few of her cars in very unfortunate events. After plenty of irrelevant discussions during the trial, they decide that the only way to settle this is to replay the whole situation all over again, so Dee and Charlie go in Frank's car and Mac goes in Dennis' car to see how the whole thing plays out. Eventually a misunderstanding occurs between Dee and Frank where Frank thought Dee said left but she actually said right just like Charlie, and Frank ends up rear ending Dennis again making him spill his cereal all over his car. At this point Dennis is furious and asks Frank how he could rear end him yet again. Frank puts the blame on Dee for confusing him and in the end they decide that Dee should pay for all the damages even when it wasn't her fault, ultimately screwing her over once more. Side note: the nature of "The Gang's" view of Dee is that of an annoying person that they use as a scapegoat whenever it is in their best interest, hence why they placed all the blame on her. In the end, the problem was resolved but in the least fair way possible that caused an innocent person to pay for the damages. The problem was completely avoidable but the nature of each of their characters is what caused the whole thing to escalate, starting from Frank's inability to follow the tape Charlie gave him and Dennis' irresponsible act of eating cereal while driving to "The Gang" settling the dispute in a logical manner.
This whole conflict is quite comical mainly because all of the characters have very complex personality disorders such as Grandiose Delusion.