Withdrawal is a conflict solving technique that presupposes ignoring the problematic situation until somebody else fixes it. Such a strategy is mostly used “to preserve neutrality or reputation” in situations where the side that opts for it cannot win (Stackpole). Actually, this is how Joe Hunter has behaved until present; from now on, however, he finds it impossible to avoid the confrontation. He decided to do something finally, while withdrawal means doing nothing by definition, hence is no more applicable to the case under the review.
Accommodation is apparently acceptable for none of the parties, as neither is ready to yield to the opponent. Although that would enable protecting the relationships, both Joe and Captain Webb are too adhering to their principles to surrender. For Joe, to admit his defeat is to whether leave the job or part with his girlfriend, none of which he would agree to do. In addition, I guess that the angrier a man grows, the less likely he is to yield. Meanwhile, Joe actually became furious in the end, which allows assuming that he will persist in his stand till the last.
Winning at all costs would, of course, be the most desired option for Joe. The only problem is that the captain doubtlessly has the same intention, therefore, their interaction cannot be peaceful. If Joe opted for this technique, his first step would have to lie in identifying what exactly to see as winning. Simply a return to normal at workplace, restoring a good relationship with the captain, or maybe something else? Having answered that question, he would need to develop an action plan. Also, it would be essential for Joe to protect his girlfriend from being involved into the conflict against her will.
Such a strategy as collaboration presupposes meeting the interests of all parties, which is actually guessable from its name. In the given case, that means the need for Joe to talk to Captain Webb and decide what exactly each of them wants. Thus, Joe would like to keep both the job and the girlfriend, while the captain is apparently not willing to allow for that. Such behavior is absolutely unacceptable from both legal and ethical viewpoints, for which reason justice is at Joe’s end. If he chose collaboration, he would have to discuss everything with the captain, identify his motives and decide on further actions, depending on what his boss tells.
Finally, a third party intervention would apparently require consulting a labor union about how to oppose Captain Webb’s improper attitude. Joe would have to prove that his boss has given him the worst assignments and lowered his performance evaluations intentionally for a while. This would most probably be challenging, as there is only his word against the captain’s word. However, if he succeeded, the conflict would be resolved quickly and favorably.
If I were Joe Hunter in the given situation, I would try collaboration first. Notably, I would talk to the captain about the exact reasons for his behavior and the consequences he is counting on. Then, I would try to persuade him to stop behaving in such an inappropriate way, appealing to logic and ethics, which are actually critical for a competent police officer. Unless that worked, I would invite a labor union as a third party in order to have the confrontation resolved at a professional level. This is, in my opinion, the only way to avoid further escalation resulting from the excessive emotionality of both parties.
References
Stackpole, C. S. (n.d.).PMP certification: 6 strategies for conflict resolution. Dummies. Web.