NEGOTIATION AND CONFLICT MANAGEMENT.

 

INTRODUCTION

Many people automatically assume that conflict is related to lower group and organizational performance. This chapter has demonstrated that this assumption is frequently incorrect. Conflict can be either constructive or destructive to the functioning of a group or unit
. As shown in Exhibit 14-8, levels of conflict can be either too high or too low. Either extreme hinders performance. An optimal level is where there is enough conflict to prevent stagnation, stimulate creativity, allow tensions to be released, and initiate the seeds for change, yet not so much as to be disruptive or deter coordination of activities.

Inadequate or excessive levels of conflict can hinder the effectiveness of a group or an organization, resulting in reduced satisfaction of group members, increased absence and turnover rates, and, eventually, lower productivity. On the other hand, when conflict is at an optimal level, complacency and apathy should be minimized, motivation should be enhanced through the creation of a challenging and questioning environment with a vitality that makes work interesting, and there should be the amount of turnover needed to rid the organization of misfits and poor performers.

What advice can we give managers faced with excessive conflict and the need to reduce it? Do not assume there is one conflict-handling intention that will always be best! You should select an intention appropriate for the situation. The following provides some guidelines:

·        Use competition when quick, decisive action is vital (in emergencies); on important issues, where unpopular actions need implementing (in cost cutting, enforcing unpopular rules, discipline); on issues vital to the organization’s welfare when you know you are right; and against people who take advantage of noncompetitive behavior.

·        Use collaboration to find an integrative solution when both sets of concerns are too important to be compromised; when your objective is to learn; to merge insights from people with different perspectives; to gain commitment by incorporating concerns into a consensus; and to work through feelings that have interfered with a relationship.

·        Use avoidance when an issue is trivial, or more important issues are pressing; when you perceive no chance of satisfying your concerns; when potential disruption outweighs the benefits of resolution; to let people cool down and regain perspective; when gathering information supersedes immediate decision; when others can resolve the conflict more effectively; and when issues seem tangential or symptomatic of other issues.

·        Use accommodation when you find you are wrong and to allow a better position to be heard, to learn, and to show your reasonableness; when issues are more important to others than yourself and to satisfy others and maintain cooperation; to build social credits for later issues; to minimize loss when you are outmatched and losing; when harmony and stability are especially important; and to allow employees to develop by learning from mistakes.

·        Use compromise when goals are important but not worth the effort of potential disruption of more assertive approaches; when opponents with equal power are committed to mutually exclusive goals; to achieve temporary settlements to complex issues; to arrive at expedient solutions under time pressure; and as a backup when collaboration or competition is unsuccessful.

Negotiation was shown to be an ongoing activity in groups and organizations. Distributive bargaining can resolve disputes but it often negatively affects one or more negotiators’ satisfaction because it is focused on the short term and because it is confrontational. Integrative bargaining, in contrast, tends to provide outcomes that satisfy all parties and that build lasting relationships.

SUBJECT STARTS

A Definition of Conflict

Notes:

1.   There are several common themes which underlie most definitions: ·         The parties to it must perceive conflict. ·         Commonalties in the definitions are opposition or incompatibility and some form of interaction. 2.   We define conflict as “a process that begins when one party perceives that another party has negatively affected, or is about to negatively affect, something that the first party cares about.” ·         This describes that point when an interaction “crosses over” to become an inter-party conflict. ·         It encompasses the wide range of conflicts that people experience in organizations.

Transitions in Conflict Thought

Notes:

1.   The traditional view of conflict argues that it must be avoided—it indicates a malfunctioning with the group. 2.   The human relations view argues that conflict is a natural and inevitable outcome in any group and that it need not be evil, but has the potential to be a positive force in determining group performance. 3.   The inter-actionist approach proposes that conflict can be a positive force in a group but explicitly argues that some conflict is absolutely necessary for a group to perform effectively.

A.  The Traditional View

Notes:

5.   This early approach assumed that all conflict was bad.  Conflict was synonymous with such terms that reinforced its negative connotation. By definition, it was harmful and was to be avoided. 6.   This view was consistent with the prevailing attitudes about group behavior in the 1930s and 1940s. Conflict was seen as a dysfunctional outcome resulting from poor communication, a lack of openness and trust between people, and the failure of managers to be responsive to their employees.

B.  The Human Relations View
1.   Conflict is a natural occurrence in all groups and organizations.   Since it was natural and inevitable it should be accepted. 2.   It cannot be eliminated and may even contribute to group performance. 3.   The human relations view dominated conflict theory from the late 1940s through the mid-1970s.

C.  The Inter-actionist View

1.   The inter-actionist view is the one taken in this chapter. 2.   This approach encourages conflict on the grounds that a harmonious, peaceful, tranquil, and cooperative group is prone to becoming static and non-responsive to needs for change and innovation. 3.   Group leaders maintain enough conflict to keep the group viable, self-critical, and creative. 4.   Whether a conflict is good or bad depends on the type of conflict.

Functional vs. Dysfunctional Conflict

Notes:

1.   Not all conflicts are good. Functional, constructive forms of conflict support the goals of the group and improve its performance. Conflicts that hinder group performance are dysfunctional or destructive forms of conflict. 2.   What differentiates functional from dysfunctional conflict? You need to look at the type of conflict. ·         Task conflict relates to the content and goals of the work. Low-to-moderate levels of task conflict are functional and consistently demonstrate a positive effect on group performance because it stimulates discussion, improving group performance. ·         Relationship conflict focuses on interpersonal relationships. a.   These conflicts are almost always dysfunctional. b.   The friction and interpersonal hostilities inherent in relationship conflicts increase personality clashes and decrease mutual understanding. ·         Process conflict relates to how the work gets done. a.   Low-levels of process conflict are functional and could enhance team performance. b.   For process conflict to be productive, it must be kept low. c.   Intense arguments create uncertainty.

The Conflict Process

A.    Stage I: Potential Opposition or Incompatibility

Notes:

First is the presence of conditions that create opportunities for conflict to arise. Three general categories: communication, structure, and personal variables 1.   Communication ·         Communication as a source of conflict represents those opposing forces that arise from semantic difficulties, misunderstandings, and “noise” in the communication channels. ·         Differing word connotations, jargon, insufficient exchange of information, and noise in the communication channel are all barriers to communication and potential antecedents to conflict.

A.  Stage I: Potential Opposition or Incompatibility (cont.)

Notes:

·         Semantic difficulties are a result of differences in training, selective perception, and inadequate information. ·         The potential for conflict increases when either too little or too much communication takes place. ·         The channel chosen for communicating can have an influence on stimulating opposition. 2.   Structure ·         The term structure includes variables such as size, degree of specialization, jurisdictional clarity, member-goal compatibility, leadership styles, reward systems, and the degree of dependence. ·         Size and specialization act as forces to stimulate conflict. The larger the group and more specialized its activities, the greater the likelihood of conflict. ·         The potential for conflict is greatest where group members are younger and turnover is high. ·         The greater the ambiguity in responsibility for actions lies, the greater the potential for conflict. ·         The diversity of goals among groups is a major source of conflict. ·         A close style of leadership increases conflict potential. ·         Too much reliance on participation may also stimulate conflict. ·         Reward systems, too, are found to create conflict when one member’s gain is at another’s expense. ·         Finally, if a group is dependent on another group, opposing forces are stimulated. 3.   Personal variables ·         Include individual value systems and personality characteristics.  Certain personality types lead to potential conflict. ·         Most important is differing value systems. Value differences are the best explanation for differences of opinion on various matters.

B.  Stage II: Cognition and Personalization

Notes:

1.   Antecedent conditions lead to conflict only when the parties are affected by and aware of it. 2.   Conflict is personalized when it is felt and when individuals become emotionally involved. 3.   This stage is where conflict issues tend to be defined and this definition delineates the possible settlements. 4.   Second, emotions play a major role in shaping perceptions. ·         Negative emotions produce oversimplification of issues, reductions in trust, and negative interpretations of the other party’s behavior. ·         Positive feelings increase the tendency to see potential relationships among the elements of a problem, to take a broader view of the situation, and to develop more innovative solutions.

C.  Stage III: Intentions

1.   Intentions are decisions to act in a given way. 2.   Why are intentions separated out as a distinct stage? Merely one party attributing the wrong intentions to the other escalates a lot of conflicts. 3.   One author’s effort to identify the primary conflict-handling intentions is represented in Exhibit 14-2 is along two dimensions: ·         Cooperativeness—“the degree to which one party attempts to satisfy the other party’s concerns.” ·         Assertiveness—“the degree to which one party attempts to satisfy his or her own concerns.”

C.  Stage III: Intentions (cont.)

Notes:

4.   Five conflict-handling intentions can be identified. ·         Competing: When one person seeks to satisfy his or her own interests, regardless of the impact on the other parties to the conflict ·         Collaborating: When the parties to conflict each desire to fully satisfy the concerns of all parties.  The intention is to solve the problem by clarifying differences rather than by accommodating. ·         Avoiding: A person may recognize that a conflict exists and want to withdraw from it or suppress it. ·         Accommodating: When one party seeks to appease an opponent, that party is willing to be self-sacrificing. ·         Compromising: When each party to the conflict seeks to give up something, sharing occurs, resulting in a compromised outcome. There is no clear winner or loser, and the solution provides incomplete satisfaction of both parties’ concerns. 5.   Intentions provide general guidelines for parties in a conflict situation. They define each party’s purpose, but they are not fixed. ·         They might change because of reconceptualization or because of an emotional reaction. ·         However, individuals have preferences among the five conflict-handling intentions. ·         It may be more appropriate to view the five conflict-handling intentions as relatively fixed rather than as a set of options from which individuals choose to fit an appropriate situation.

D.  Stage IV: Behavior

1.   Stage IV is where conflicts become visible.  The behavior stage includes the statements, actions, and reactions made by the conflicting parties. These conflict behaviors are usually overt attempts to implement each party’s intentions.  2.   Stage IV is a dynamic process of interaction; conflicts exist somewhere along a continuum (See Exhibit 14-4). ·         At the lower part of the continuum, conflicts are characterized by subtle, indirect, and highly controlled forms of tension. ·         Conflict intensities escalate as they move upward along the continuum until they become highly destructive. ·         Functional conflicts are typically confined to the lower range of the continuum. 3.   Exhibit 14-4 lists the major resolution and stimulation techniques.

E    Stage V: Outcomes

Notes:

1.   Outcomes may be functional—improving group performance, or dysfunctional in hindering it. 2.   Functional outcomes ·         How might conflict act as a force to increase group performance? ·         Conflict is constructive when it: a.   Improves the quality of decisions. b.   Stimulates creativity and innovation. c.   Encourages interest and curiosity. d.   Provides the medium through which problems can be aired and tensions released. e.   Fosters an environment of self-evaluation and change. ·         The evidence suggests that conflict can improve the quality of decision-making. ·         Conflict is an antidote for groupthink. ·         Conflict challenges the status quo, furthers the creation of new ideas, promotes reassessment of group goals and activities, and increases the probability that the group will respond to change. ·         Research studies in diverse settings confirm the functionality of conflict. a.   The comparison of six major decisions made during the administration of four different US presidents found that conflict reduced the chance of groupthink. b.   When groups analyzed decisions that had been made by the individual members of that group, the average improvement among the high-conflict groups was 73 percent greater than was that of those groups characterized by low-conflict conditions. ·         Increasing cultural diversity of the workforce should provide benefits to organizations. a.   Heterogeneity among group and organization members can increase creativity, improve the quality of decisions, and facilitate change by enhancing member flexibility. b.   The ethnically diverse groups produced more effective and more feasible ideas and higher quality, unique ideas than those produced by the all-Anglo group. ·         Similarly, studies of professionals—systems analysts and research and development scientists—support the constructive value of conflict. a.   An investigation of 22 teams of systems analysts found that the more incompatible groups were likely to be more productive. E.    Research and development scientists have been found to be most productive where there is a certain amount of intellectual conflict.

E.    Stage V: Outcomes (cont.)

Notes:

3.   Dysfunctional outcomes ·         Uncontrolled opposition breeds discontent, which acts to dissolve common ties and eventually leads to the destruction of the group. ·         Undesirable consequences: a.   A retarding of communication b.   Reductions in group cohesiveness c.   Subordination of group goals to the primacy of infighting between members ·         Conflict can bring group functioning to a halt and potentially threaten the group’s survival. ·         The demise of an organization as a result of too much conflict is not as unusual as it might first appear. One of New York’s best-known law firms, Shea & Gould, closed down solely because the 80 partners just could not get along. 4.   Creating functional conflict ·         If managers accept the inter-actionist view toward conflict, they encourage functional conflict. 5.   Creating functional conflict is a tough job, particularly in large American corporations. ·         A high proportion of people who get to the top are conflict avoiders. ·         At least seven out of ten people in American business hush up when their opinions are at odds with those of their superiors, allowing bosses to make mistakes even when they know better. ·         Such anti-conflict cultures are not tolerable in today’s fiercely competitive global economy. 6.   This process frequently results in decisions and alternatives that previously had not been considered. ·         One common ingredient in organizations that successfully create functional conflict is that they reward dissent and punish conflict avoiders. ·         The real challenge for managers is when they hear news that they do not want to hear. ·         Managers should ask calm, even-tempered questions: “Can you tell me more about what happened?,” “What do you think we ought to do?,” and offer a sincere “Thank you.”

F.  Negotiation

Notes:

1.   Negotiation is a “process in which two or more parties exchange goods or services and attempt to agree upon the exchange rate for them.” We use the terms negotiation and bargaining interchangeably. 2.   Negotiation permeates the interactions of almost everyone in groups and organizations. For example, labor bargains with management. 3.   Not so obvious, however, ·         Managers negotiate with employees, peers, and bosses. ·         Salespeople negotiate with customers. ·         Purchasing agents negotiate with suppliers. ·         A worker agrees to answer a colleague’s phone for a few minutes in exchange for some past or future benefit.

G.  Bargaining Strategies

1.      There are two general approaches to negotiation:  distributive bargaining and integrative bargaining. (See Exhibit 14-5) 2.      Distributive bargaining ·         An example of distributive bargaining is buying a car: a.   You go out to see the car. It is great and you want it. b.   The owner tells you the asking price. You do not want to pay that much. c.   The two of you then negotiate over the price. ·         Its most identifying feature is that it operates under zero-sum conditions. Any gain I make is at your expense, and vice versa. ·         The most widely cited example of distributive bargaining is in labor-management negotiations over wages. ·         The essence of distributive bargaining is depicted in Exhibit 14-6.  a.   Parties A and B represent two negotiators. b.   Each has a target point that defines what he or she would like to achieve. c.   Each also has a resistance point, which marks the lowest outcome that is acceptable. d.   The area between these two points makes up each one’s aspiration range. F.    As long as there is some overlap between A and B’s aspiration ranges, there exists a settlement range where each one’s aspirations can be met. ·         When engaged in distributive bargaining, one’s tactics focus on trying to get one’s opponent to agree to one’s specific target point or to get as close to it as possible.

G.   Bargaining Strategies (cont.)

Notes:

3.   Integrative bargaining ·         An example:  A sales rep calls in the order and is told that the firm cannot approve credit to this customer because of a past slow-pay record. a.   The next day, the sales rep and the firm’s credit manager meet to discuss the problem. They want to make the sale, but do not want to get stuck with uncollectable debt. b.   The two openly review their options. c.   After considerable discussion, they agree on a solution that meets both their needs.  The sale will go through with a bank guarantee that will ensure payment if not made in 60 days. ·         This example operates under the assumption that there exists one or more settlements that can create a win-win solution. ·         In terms of intra-organizational behavior, all things being equal, integrative bargaining is preferable to distributive bargaining. ·         Because integrative bargaining builds long-term relationships and facilitates working together in the future, it bonds negotiators and allows each to leave the bargaining table feeling victorious. ·         Distributive bargaining, on the other hand, leaves one party a loser. It tends to build animosities and deepens divisions. ·         Why do we not see more integrative bargaining in organizations? The answer lies in the conditions necessary for this type of negotiation to succeed. a.   Parties who are open with information and candid about their concerns b.   A sensitivity by both parties to the other’s needs c.   The ability to trust one another d.   A willingness by both parties to maintain flexibility

H.  The Negotiation Process

Notes:

1.   A simplified model of the negotiation process is provided in Exhibit 14-7. 2.  Preparation and planning: ·         Do your homework. What is the nature of the conflict? What is the history leading up to this negotiation? Who is involved, and what are their perceptions of the conflict? What do you want from the negotiation? What are your goals? ·         You also want to prepare an assessment of what you think the other party to your negotiation’s goals are. a.   When you can anticipate your opponent’s position, you are better equipped to counter his or her arguments with the facts and figures that support your position.

H.  The Negotiation Process (cont.)

Notes:

·         Once you have gathered your information, use it to develop a strategy. ·         Determine your and the other side’s Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). a.   Your BATNA determines the lowest value acceptable to you for a negotiated agreement. b.     Any offer you receive that is higher than your BATNA is better than an impasse. 3.   Definition of ground rules: ·         Who will do the negotiating? Where will it take place? What time constraints, if any, will apply? ·         To what issues will negotiation be limited? Will there be a specific procedure to follow if an impasse is reached? ·         During this phase, the parties will also exchange their initial proposals or demands. 4.   Clarification and justification: ·         When initial positions have been exchanged, explain, amplify, clarify, bolster, and justify your original demands ·         This need not be confrontational. ·         You might want to provide the other party with any documentation that helps support your position. 5.   Bargaining and problem solving: ·         The essence of the negotiation process is the actual give and take in trying to hash out an agreement. ·         Concessions will undoubtedly need to be made by both parties. 6.   Closure and implementation: ·         The final step—formalizing the agreement that has been worked out and developing any procedures that are necessary for implementation and monitoring ·         Major negotiations will require hammering out the specifics in a formal contract. ·         For most cases, however, closure of the negotiation process is nothing more formal than a handshake.

I.  Issues in Negotiation
1.   The role of personality traits in negotiation ·         Can you predict an opponent’s negotiating tactics if you know something about his/her personality? The evidence says no. ·         Overall assessments of the personality-negotiation relationship finds that personality traits have no significant direct effect on either the bargaining process or negotiation outcomes.

I.  Issues in Negotiation (cont.)

Notes:

2.   Gender differences in negotiations ·         Men and women do not negotiate differently. ·         A popular stereotype is that women are more cooperative, pleasant, and relationship-oriented in negotiations than are men. The evidence does not support this. ·         Comparisons between experienced male and female managers find women are: a.   Neither worse nor better negotiators. b.   Neither more cooperative nor open to the other. c.      Neither more nor less persuasive nor threatening than are men. ·         The belief that women are “nicer” is probably due to confusing gender and the lack of power typically held by women. a.   Low-power managers, regardless of gender, attempt to placate their opponents and to use softly persuasive tactics rather than direct confrontation and threats. ·         Women’s attitudes toward negotiation and toward themselves appear to be different from men’s. a.   Managerial women demonstrate less confidence in anticipation of negotiating and are less satisfied with their performance despite achieving similar outcomes as men. b.     Women may unduly penalize themselves by failing to engage in negotiations when such action would be in their best interests. 3.   Cultural differences in negotiations ·         Negotiating styles clearly vary across national cultures. ·         The French like conflict. a.   They gain recognition and develop their reputations by thinking and acting against others. b.   They tend to take a long time in negotiating agreements, and they are not overly concerned about whether their opponents like or dislike them. ·         The Chinese also draw out negotiations but that is because they believe negotiations never end. a.   Just when you think you have reached a final solution, the Chinese executive might smile and start the process all over again. b.   Like the Japanese, the Chinese negotiate to develop a relationship and a commitment to work together. ·         Americans are known around the world for their impatience and their desire to be liked. a.   Astute negotiators often turn these characteristics to their advantage. 4.   The cultural context of the negotiation significantly influences the amount and type of preparation for bargaining, the emphasis on task versus interpersonal relationships, the tactics used, etc. 5.   A study compared North Americans, Arabs, and Russians negotiating style, how they responded to an opponent’s arguments, their approach to making concessions, and how they handled negotiating deadlines.

I.  Issues in Negotiation (cont.)

Notes:

·         North Americans tried to persuade others by relying on facts and appealing to logic. a.   They made small concessions early in the negotiation to establish a relationship and usually reciprocated the opponent’s concessions. b.   North Americans treated deadlines as very important. ·         The Arabs tried to persuade by appealing to emotion. a.   They countered opponent’s arguments with subjective feelings. b.   They made concessions throughout the bargaining process and almost always reciprocated opponents’ concessions. c.   Arabs approached deadlines very casually. ·         The Russians based their arguments on asserted ideals. a.   They made few, if any, concessions. b.   Any concession offered by an opponent was viewed as a weakness and almost never reciprocated. c.      Finally, the Russians tended to ignore deadlines. 3.   A second study looked at verbal and nonverbal negotiation tactics exhibited by North Americans, Japanese, and Brazilians during half-hour bargaining sessions. ·         Brazilians on average said “No” 83 times compared to five times for the Japanese and nine times for the North Americans. ·         The Japanese displayed more than five periods of silence lasting longer than ten seconds during the 30-minute sessions. ·         North Americans averaged 3.5 such periods; the Brazilians had none. ·         The Japanese and North Americans interrupted their opponent about the same number of times, but the Brazilians interrupted 2.5 to 3 times more often. ·         Finally, while the Japanese and the North Americans had no physical contact with their opponents during negotiations except for handshaking, the Brazilians touched each other almost five times every half-hour. 7.   Third-party negotiations ·         When individuals or group representatives reach a stalemate and are unable to resolve their differences through direct negotiations, they may turn to a third party. ·         A mediator is a neutral third party who facilitates a negotiated solution by using reasoning and persuasion, suggesting alternatives, and the like. a.   They are widely used in labor-management negotiations and in civil court disputes. b.   Their settlement rate is approximately 60 percent, with negotiator satisfaction at about 75 percent. c.   The key to success—the conflicting parties must be motivated to bargain and resolve their conflict, intensity cannot be too high, and the mediator must be perceived as neutral and noncoercive.

I.  Issues in Negotiation (cont.)

Notes:

·         An arbitrator is “a third party with the authority to dictate an agreement.” a.   It can be voluntary (requested) or compulsory (forced on the parties by law or contract). b.   The authority of the arbitrator varies according to the rules set by the negotiators. c.   The arbitrator might be limited to choosing one of the negotiator’s last offers or to suggesting an agreement point that is nonbinding, or free to choose and make any judgment. d.   The big plus of arbitration over mediation is that it always results in a settlement. e.   Any negative depends on how “heavy-handed” the arbitrator appears. ·         A conciliator is “a trusted third party who provides an informal communication link among parties.” a.   This role was made famous by Robert Duval in the first Godfather film. b.   Conciliation is used extensively in international, labor, family, and community disputes. c.   Comparing its effectiveness to mediation has proven difficult. d.   Conciliators engage in fact finding, interpreting messages, and persuading disputants to develop agreements. ·         A consultant is “a skilled and impartial third party who attempts to facilitate problem solving through communication and analysis, aided by his or her knowledge of conflict management.” a.   In contrast to the previous roles, the consultant’s role is to improve relations between the conflicting parties so that they can reach a settlement themselves. b.   This approach has a longer-term focus: to build new and positive perceptions and attitudes between the conflicting parties.

QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW

1.   What are the disadvantages to conflict? What are its advantages?

Answer – Conflict can injure feelings, delay the work process, result in factions developing, etc. Conflict, however, can stimulate opinions, raise more and better ideas, air any problems or interpersonal conflicts so that they can be resolved, etc.

2.   What is the difference between functional and dysfunctional conflict? What determines functionality?

Answer – Functional—constructive forms of conflict support the goals of the group and improve its performance. Conflicts that hinder group performance are dysfunctional or destructive forms of conflict. Dysfunctional conflict depends on the type of conflict.

Task conflict relates to the content and goals of the work.

·        Low-to-moderate levels of task conflict are functional and consistently demonstrate a positive effect on group performance because it stimulates discussion of ideas that help groups perform better.

Relationship conflict focuses on interpersonal relationships.

·        These conflicts are almost always dysfunctional.

·        The friction and interpersonal hostilities inherent in relationship conflicts increase personality clashes and decrease mutual understanding, which hinders the completion of organizational tasks.

Process conflict relates to how the work gets done.

·        Low-levels of process conflict are functional and could enhance team performance.

·        For process conflict to be productive, it must be kept low.

·        Intense arguments create uncertainty.

3.   Under what conditions might conflict be beneficial to a group?

Answer – The conditions differ according to the type of conflict. With task conflict, low-to-moderate levels of task conflict are functional and stimulate discussion of ideas that help groups perform better. Relationship conflict is almost always dysfunctional because it decreases mutual understanding, which hinders the completion of organizational tasks. Process conflict is functional if kept to a low-level.

4.   What are the components in the conflict process model? From your own experiences, give an example of how a conflict proceeded through the five stages.

Answer – The process is diagrammed in Exhibit 14-1.

·        Stage I: Potential opposition or incompatibility—The first step in the conflict process is the presence of conditions that create opportunities for conflict to arise. These conditions have been condensed into three general categories: communication, structure, and personal variables.

·        Stage II: Cognition and personalization—The antecedent conditions can lead to conflict only when one or more of the parties are affected by, and aware of, the conflict.  Just because a conflict is perceived does not mean that it is personalized. It is important because it is where conflict issues tend to be defined.

·        Stage III: Intentions—Intentions are decisions to act in a given way. Exhibit 14-2 represents one author’s effort to identify the primary conflict-handling intentions. Two dimensions—cooperativeness and assertiveness. Five conflict-handling intentions can be identified: competing (assertive and uncooperative), collaborating (assertive and cooperative), avoiding (unassertive and uncooperative), accommodating (unassertive and cooperative), and compromising (midrange on both assertiveness and cooperativeness).

·        Stage IV: Behavior—The behavior stage includes the statements, actions, and reactions made by the conflicting parties. These conflict behaviors are usually overt attempts to implement each party’s intentions. Exhibit 14-3 provides a way of visualizing conflict behavior. Exhibit 14-4 lists the major resolution and stimulation techniques that allow managers to control conflict levels.

·        Stage V: Outcomes—Outcomes may be functional in that the conflict results in an improvement in the group’s performance, or dysfunctional in that it hinders group performance. Conflict is constructive when it improves the quality of decisions, stimulates creativity and innovation, etc. Dysfunctional outcomes—uncontrolled opposition breeds discontent, which acts to dissolve common ties, and eventually leads to the destruction of the group. Among the more undesirable consequences are a retarding of communication, reductions in group cohesiveness, and subordination of group goals to the primacy of infighting between members.

5.   How could a manager stimulate conflict in his or her department?

Answer – If managers accept the inter-actionist view toward conflict, they encourage functional conflict. Creating functional conflict is a tough job, particularly in large American corporations. A high proportion of people who get to the top are conflict avoiders. At least seven out of ten people in American business hush up when their opinions are at odds with those of their superiors, allowing bosses to make mistakes even when they know better.

Examples of creating functional conflict:

·        Hewlett-Packard rewards dissenters by recognizing go-against-the-grain types.

·        Herman Miller, Inc., has a formal system in which employees evaluate and criticize their bosses.

·        IBM also has a formal system that encourages dissension. Employees can question their boss with impunity.

·        Royal Dutch Shell Group, General Electric, and Anheuser-Busch build devil’s advocates into the decision process.

6.   What defines the settlement range in distributive bargaining?

Answer – The essence of distributive bargaining is depicted in Exhibit 14-6. Each party’s target point or resistance point marks the lowest outcome that is acceptable, and the area between these two points makes up each party’s aspiration range. As long as there is some overlap between A and B’s aspiration ranges, there exists a settlement range where each one’s aspirations can be met.

7.   Why isn’t integrative bargaining more widely practiced in organizations?

Answer – In terms of intra-organizational behavior, all things being equal, integrative bargaining is preferable to distributive bargaining, because the former builds long-term relationships and facilitates working together in the future. It bonds negotiators and allows each to leave the bargaining table feeling that he or she has achieved a victory. We do not see more integrative bargaining in organizations because certain conditions are necessary for this type of negotiation to succeed.

·        Parties who are open with information and candid about their concerns

·        A sensitivity by both parties to the other’s needs

·        The ability to trust one another

·        A willingness by both parties to maintain flexibility

8.   How do men and women differ, if at all, in their approaches to negotiation?

Answer – Men and women do not negotiate differently. Comparisons between experienced male and female managers find women are neither worse nor better negotiators, neither more cooperative nor open to the other, and neither more nor less persuasive nor threatening than are men. However, women’s attitudes toward negotiation and toward themselves as negotiators appear to be quite different from men’s. Managerial women demonstrate less confidence in anticipation of negotiating and are less satisfied with their performance despite achieving similar outcomes as men. Women may unduly penalize themselves by failing to engage in negotiations when such action would be in their best interests.

9.   What problems might Americans have in negotiating with people from collectivist cultures like China and Japan?

Answer – The Chinese also draw out negotiations but that is because they believe negotiations never end. Just when you think you have reached a final solution, the Chinese executive might smile and start the process all over again. Like the Japanese, the Chinese negotiate to develop a relationship and a commitment to work together. Americans are known around the world for their impatience and their desire to be liked. Astute negotiators often turn these characteristics to their advantage. North Americans tried to persuade by relying on facts and appealing to logic. They made small concessions early in the negotiation to establish a relationship, and usually reciprocated opponent’s concessions. North Americans treated deadlines as very important.

Another study looked at verbal and nonverbal negotiation tactics exhibited by North Americans and Japanese. Japanese on average said “No” five times for the nine times the North Americans did. The Japanese displayed more than five periods of silence lasting longer than ten seconds during the 30-minute sessions. North Americans averaged 3.5 such periods. The Japanese and North Americans interrupted their opponent about the same number of times. Finally, the Japanese and the North Americans had no physical contact with their opponents during negotiations except for handshaking.

10. What can you do to improve your negotiating effectiveness?

      Answer – Take the time to assess your own goals, consider the other party’s goals and interests, and develop a strategy, then try the following:

·        Begin with a positive overture. Concessions tend to be reciprocated and lead to agreements.

·        Address problems, not personalities. Concentrate on the negotiation issues, not on the personal characteristics of your opponent.

·        Pay little attention to initial offers. Treat an initial offer as merely a point of departure.

·        Emphasize win-win solutions, assuming a zero-sum game means missed opportunities for trade-offs that could benefit both sides. So, if conditions are supportive, look for an integrative solution.

·        Create an open and trusting climate. Skilled negotiators are better listeners, ask more questions, focus their arguments more directly, are less defensive, and have learned to avoid words and phrases that can irritate an opponent.

QUESTIONS FOR CRITICAL THINKING

1.   Do you think competition and conflict are different? Explain.

Answer – They are both different and the same. First, they are the same in that there is a struggle over an issue, a resource, a decision between two or more parties, and a fight for control or power whether it’s winning a race or arguing over how to handle a labor dispute. They are the same in that they can be personal or professional in nature, but they are also different. Supposedly, competition is to stay on the “field of competition,” and not become personal, whereas a major source of conflict is personal. Competition is universally valued in American culture, whereas it’s still a split decision over the benefits of conflict.

2.   “Participation is an excellent method for identifying differences and resolving conflicts.” Do you agree or disagree? Discuss.

Answer – Participation will do this if there is trust, training in how to facilitate non-personal disagreement, and a commitment to work together. If these are not present, then participation is worthless.

3.   From your own experience, describe a situation you were involved in where the conflict was dysfunctional. Describe another example, from your experience, where the conflict was functional. Now analyze how other parties in both conflicts might have interpreted the situation in terms of whether the conflicts were functional or dysfunctional.

Answer – Students’ examples will vary but should take the criteria for functional and dysfunctional conflict into consideration; see the answer for #2 above in Questions for Review.

4.   Assume a Canadian had to negotiate a contract with someone from Spain. What problems might he or she face? What suggestions would you make to help facilitate a settlement?

Answer – The text does not provide information directly related to these two nationalities. Students might draw the following assumptions from two parallel cultures—Brazilians and North Americans—or you may wish to assign a brief cultural background research assignment to students. Consider bringing in a colleague from the Modern Languages department to discuss Spanish culture.

5.   Michael Eisner, CEO at the Walt Disney Co., wants to stimulate conflict inside his firm, but he wants to minimize conflict with outside parties—agents, contractors, unions, etc.  What does this say about conflict levels, functional vs. dysfunctional conflict, and managing conflict?

Answer – It suggests that there may be apathy or groupthink going on and Mr. Eisner wants to create more energy inside the firm.  He is probably looking for new ideas, increased communication, etc.  He does not, however, want to create negative relationships with outside parties.  He is looking for functional conflict to improve performance and is not afraid of the challenge to do so.

POINT-COUNTERPOINT – Conflict Benefits Organizations

POINT

How stimulating conflict can provide benefits to the organization:

·        Conflict is a means by which to bring about radical change.

·        Conflict facilitates group cohesiveness.

·        Conflict improves group and organizational effectiveness.

·        Conflict brings about a slightly higher, more constructive level of tension.

Groups or organizations devoid of conflict are likely to suffer from apathy, stagnation, group-think, and other debilitating diseases. Look at a list of large organizations that have failed or suffered serious financial setbacks over the past decade or two. The common thread through these companies is that they stagnated.  Their managements became complacent and unable or unwilling to facilitate change.  These organizations could have benefited from functional conflict.