ConflictConflict

ConflictConflict

– Is 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.

• Is that point in an ongoing activity when an interaction “crosses over” to become an interparty conflict.

– Encompasses a wide range of conflicts that people experience in organizations

• Incompatibility of goals• Differences over interpretations of facts• Disagreements based on behavioral expectations

Transitions in Conflict ThoughtTransitions in Conflict Thought

Causes:

• Poor communication

• Lack of openness

• Failure to respond to employee needs

Causes:

• Poor communication

• Lack of openness

• Failure to respond to employee needs

Traditional View of Conflict

The belief that all conflict is harmful and must be avoided.

Transitions in Conflict Thought Transitions in Conflict Thought

Human Relations View of Conflict

The belief that conflict is a natural and inevitable outcome in any group.

Interactionist View of Conflict

The belief that conflict is not only a positive force in a group but that it is absolutely necessary for a group to perform effectively.

Functional versus Dysfunctional ConflictFunctional versus Dysfunctional Conflict

Functional Conflict

Conflict that supports the goals of the group and improves its performance.

Dysfunctional Conflict

Conflict that hinders group performance.

Types of ConflictTypes of Conflict

Task Conflict

Conflicts over content and goals of the work.

Relationship Conflict

Conflict based on interpersonal relationships.

Process Conflict

Conflict over how work gets done.

The Conflict ProcessThe Conflict Process

Stage I: Potential Opposition or IncompatibilityStage I: Potential Opposition or Incompatibility

Communication– Semantic difficulties, misunderstandings, and

“noise” Structure

– Size and specialization of jobs– Jurisdictional clarity/ambiguity– Member/goal incompatibility– Leadership styles (close or participative)– Reward systems (win-lose)– Dependence/interdependence of groups

Personal Variables– Differing individual value systems– Personality types

Stage II: Cognition and PersonalizationStage II: Cognition and Personalization

Positive FeelingsPositive FeelingsPositive FeelingsPositive FeelingsNegative EmotionsNegative EmotionsNegative EmotionsNegative Emotions

Conflict DefinitionConflict DefinitionConflict DefinitionConflict Definition

Perceived Conflict

Awareness by one or more parties of the existence of conditions that create opportunities for conflict to arise.

Felt Conflict

Emotional involvement in a conflict creating anxiety, tenseness, frustration, or hostility.

Stage III: IntentionsStage III: Intentions

Cooperativeness:

• Attempting to satisfy the other party’s concerns.

Assertiveness:

• Attempting to satisfy one’s own concerns.

Cooperativeness:

• Attempting to satisfy the other party’s concerns.

Assertiveness:

• Attempting to satisfy one’s own concerns.

Intentions

Decisions to act in a given way.

Dimensions of Conflict-Handling IntentionsDimensions of Conflict-Handling Intentions

Stage III: Intentions Stage III: Intentions

Competing

A desire to satisfy one’s interests, regardless of the impact on the other party to the conflict.

Collaborating

A situation in which the parties to a conflict each desire to satisfy fully the concerns of all parties.

Avoiding

The desire to withdraw from or suppress a conflict.

Stage III: Intentions Stage III: Intentions

Accommodating

The willingness of one party in a conflict to place the opponent’s interests above his or her own.

Compromising

A situation in which each party to a conflict is willing to give up something.

Collaborating Collaborating I win, you win I win, you win Fundamental premise: Teamwork and cooperation help everyone achieve their goals while also maintaining relationships Strategic philosophy: The process of working through differences will lead to creative solutions that will satisfy both parties' concerns

When to use: •When there is a high level of trust •When you don't want to have full responsibility •When you want others to also have "ownership" of solutions •When the people involved are willing to change their thinking as more information is found and new options are suggested •When you need to work through animosity and hard feelings•Drawbacks: •The process takes lots of time and energy •Some may take advantage of other people's trust and openness

Compromising Compromising

You bend, I bendYou bend, I bendFundamental premise: Winning something while losing a little is OK Strategic philosophy: Both ends are placed against the middle in an attempt to serve the "common good" while ensuring each person can maintain something of their original position When to use:

•When people of equal status are equally committed to goals •When time can be saved by reaching intermediate settlements on individual parts of complex issues •When goals are moderately important

Drawbacks: •Important values and long-term objectives can be derailed in the process •May not work if initial demands are too great •Can spawn cynicism, especially if there's no commitment to honor the compromise solutions

Accommodating Accommodating

I lose, you winI lose, you winFundamental premise: Working toward a common purpose is more important than any of the peripheral concerns; the trauma of confronting differences may damage fragile relationships Strategic philosophy: Appease others by downplaying conflict, thus protecting the relationship When to use:

•When an issue is not as important to you as it is to the other person •When you realize you are wrong •When you are willing to let others learn by mistake •When you know you cannot win •When it is not the right time and you would prefer to simply build credit for the future •When harmony is extremely important •When what the parties have in common is a good deal more important than their differences

Drawbacks: •One's own ideas don't get attention •Credibility and influence can be lost

Competing Competing

I win, you loseI win, you loseFundamental premise: Associates "winning" a conflict with competition Strategic philosophy: When goals are extremely important, one must sometimes use power to win When to use:

•When you know you are right •When time is short and a quick decision is needed •When a strong personality is trying to steamroller you and you don't want to be taken advantage of •When you need to stand up for your rights

Drawbacks: •Can escalate conflict •Losers may retaliate

Avoiding Avoiding

No winners, no losersNo winners, no losersFundamental premise: This isn't the right time or place to address this issue Strategic philosophy: Avoids conflict by withdrawing, sidestepping, or postponing When to use:

•When the conflict is small and relationships are at stake •When you're counting to ten to cool off •When more important issues are pressing and you feel you don't have time to deal with this particular one •When you have no power and you see no chance of getting your concerns met •When you are too emotionally involved and others around you can solve the conflict more successfully •When more information is needed

Drawbacks: •Important decisions may be made by default •Postponing may make matters worse

Stage IV: BehaviorStage IV: Behavior

Conflict Management

The use of resolution and stimulation techniques to achieve the desired level of conflict.

Conflict-Intensity ContinuumConflict-Intensity Continuum

Conflict Management TechniquesConflict Management Techniques

Conflict Resolution Techniques

• Problem solving

• Super ordinate goals

• Expansion of resources

• Avoidance

• Smoothing

• Compromise

• Authoritative command

• Altering the human variable

• Altering the structural variables

Conflict Resolution Techniques

• Problem solving

• Super ordinate goals

• Expansion of resources

• Avoidance

• Smoothing

• Compromise

• Authoritative command

• Altering the human variable

• Altering the structural variables

Conflict Management TechniquesConflict Management Techniques

Conflict Resolution Techniques

• Communication

• Bringing in outsiders

• Restructuring the organization

• Appointing a devil’s advocate

Conflict Resolution Techniques

• Communication

• Bringing in outsiders

• Restructuring the organization

• Appointing a devil’s advocate

Stage V: OutcomesStage V: Outcomes

Functional Outcomes from Conflict

– Increased group performance

– Improved quality of decisions

– Stimulation of creativity and innovation

– Encouragement of interest and curiosity

– Provision of a medium for problem-solving

– Creation of an environment for self-evaluation and change

Creating Functional Conflict

– Reward dissent and punish conflict avoiders.

Stage V: OutcomesStage V: Outcomes

Dysfunctional Outcomes from Conflict

– Development of discontent

– Reduced group effectiveness

– Retarded communication

– Reduced group cohesiveness

– Infighting among group members overcomes group goals

NEGOTIATIONNEGOTIATION

The greatest misunderstanding about the negotiation process is that it is adversarial in nature. In actuality, it is not designed for those with a trial and debate mentality. It is a problem solving process in which each party may look across the table and regard its counterparts as [potential] advocates.

Colosi

NegotiationNegotiation

Negotiation

A process in which two or more parties exchange goods or services and attempt to agree on the exchange rate for them.

BATNA

The Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement; the lowest acceptable value (outcome) to an individual for a negotiated agreement.

Bargaining StrategiesBargaining Strategies

Distributive Bargaining

Negotiation that seeks to divide up a fixed amount of resources; a win-lose situation.

Integrative Bargaining

Negotiation that seeks one or more settlements that can create a win-win solution.

Distributive Versus Integrative BargainingDistributive Versus Integrative Bargaining

Bargaining Distributive IntegrativeCharacteristic Characteristic Characteristic

Available resources Fixed amount of Variable amount ofresources to be divided resources to be divided

Primary motivations I win, you lose I win, you win

Primary interests Opposed to each other Convergent or congruent

with each other

Focus of relationships Short term Long term

The difference is…The difference is…

Distributive bargaining is the approach to bargaining or negotiation that is used when the parties are trying to divide something up--distribute something.  It contrasts with integrative bargaining in which the parties are trying to make more of something.   This is most commonly explained in terms of a pie.  Disputants can work together to make the pie bigger, so there is enough for both of them to have as much as they want, or they can focus on cutting the pie up, trying to get as much as they can for themselves.  In general, integrative bargaining tends to be more cooperative, and distributive bargaining more competitive.

The Difference is…The Difference is…

Common tactics include trying to gain an advantage by insisting on negotiating on one's own home ground; having more negotiators than the other side, using tricks and deception to try to get the other side to concede more than you concede; making threats or issuing ultimatums; generally trying to force the other side to give in by overpowering them or outsmarting them, not by discussing the problem as an equal (as is done in integrative bargaining).  The goal in distributive bargaining is not to assure both sides win, but rather that one side (your side) wins as much as it can, which generally means that the other side will lose, or at least get less than it had wanted. (Distributive bargaining tactics rarely assume the pie will divided in half.)

Staking Out the Bargaining ZoneStaking Out the Bargaining Zone

The Negotiation

Process

The Negotiation

Process

Issues in NegotiationIssues in NegotiationIssues in NegotiationIssues in Negotiation

The Role of Personality Traits in Negotiation– Traits do not appear to have a significantly

direct effect on the outcomes of either bargaining or negotiating processes.

Gender Differences in Negotiations– Women negotiate no differently from men,

although men apparently negotiate slightly better outcomes.

– Men and women with similar power bases use the same negotiating styles.

– Women’s attitudes toward negotiation and their success as negotiators are less favorable than men’s.

CROSS CULTURAL NEGOTIATIONSCROSS CULTURAL NEGOTIATIONS

Culture is an important variable that will affect negotiations.

It is difficult to track the myriad starting points used by negotiators from different national settings, especially as cultures are in constant flux, and context influences behavior in multiple ways.

Negotiators also vary in the styles of persuasion they rely upon and their comfort with emotionality. – In American settings, appeals tend to be made to

logic, relying on "objective" facts. Emotional sensitivity is not highly valued, and dealings may seem straightforward and impersonal.

– Japanese negotiators value emotional sensitivity highly, and tend to hide emotions behind calm exteriors.

– Latin American negotiators tend to share the Japanese appreciation of emotional sensitivity, and express themselves passionately about their points of view.

– Arab negotiators may appeal to emotions and subjective feelings in an effort to persuade others.

– Russians, in contrast, tend to appeal to ideals, drawing everyone's attention to overarching principles.

EXAMPLE: Time OrientationsEXAMPLE: Time Orientations

Two different orientations to time exist across the world: monchronic and polychronic.

Monochronic approaches to time are linear, sequential and involve focusing on one thing at a time. These approaches are most common in the European-influenced cultures of the United States, Germany, Switzerland, and Scandinavia. Japanese people also tend toward this end of the time continuum.

Polychronic orientations to time involve simultaneous occurrences of many things and the involvement of many people. The time it takes to complete an interaction is elastic, and more important than any schedule. This orientation is most common in Mediterranean and Latin cultures including France, Italy, Greece, and Mexico, as well as some Eastern and African cultures.

Negotiators from polychronic cultures tend to:Negotiators from polychronic cultures tend to:

start and end meetings at flexible times, take breaks when it seems appropriate, be comfortable with a high flow of information, expect to read each others' thoughts and minds, sometimes overlap talk, view start times as flexible and not take lateness

personally.

Negotiators from monochronic cultures tend to:Negotiators from monochronic cultures tend to:

prefer prompt beginnings and endings, schedule breaks, deal with one agenda item at a time, rely on specific, detailed, and explicit communication, prefer to talk in sequence, view lateness as devaluing or evidence of lack of

respect.

Another dimension of time relevant to negotiations is the focus on past, present, or future.

Cultures like Iran, India, and the Far East are categorized by Carbaugh as past-oriented.

The United States tends to be oriented to the present and the near-future.

Latin America leans toward both present and past orientations. Indigenous people in North America combine a past- and future-oriented approach to time that stretches seven generations forward and back.

Negotiators focused on the present should be mindful that others may see the past or the distant future as part of the present. Negotiators for whom time stretches into the past or the future may need to remember that a present orientation can bring about needed change.

Why American Managers Might Have Trouble in Cross-Cultural Negotiations

Why American Managers Might Have Trouble in Cross-Cultural Negotiations

Italians, Germans, and French don’t soften up executives with praise before they criticize. Americans do, and to many Europeans this seems manipulative. Israelis, accustomed to fast-paced meetings, have no patience for American small talk.

British executives often complain that their U.S. counterparts chatter too much. Indian executives are used to interrupting one another. When Americans listen without asking for clarification or posing questions, Indians can feel the Americans aren’t paying attention.

Americans often mix their business and personal lives. They think nothing, for instance, about asking a colleague a question like, “How was your weekend?” In many cultures such a question is seen as intrusive because business and private lives are totally compartmentalized.

Third-Party NegotiationsThird-Party Negotiations

Mediator

A neutral third party who facilitates a negotiated solution by using reasoning, persuasion, and suggestions for alternatives.

Arbitrator

A third party to a negotiation who has the authority to dictate an agreement.

Third-Party Negotiations Third-Party Negotiations

Consultant

An impartial third party, skilled in conflict management, who attempts to facilitate creative problem solving through communication and analysis.

Conciliator

A trusted third party who provides an informal communication link between the negotiator and the opponent.

Conflict and Unit

Performance

Conflict and Unit

Performance

Conflict-Handling Intention: Competition Conflict-Handling Intention: 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’re right.

Against people who take advantage of noncompetitive behavior.

Conflict-Handling Intention: Collaboration Conflict-Handling Intention: 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.

To work through feelings that have interfered with a relationship.

Conflict-Handling Intention: Avoidance Conflict-Handling Intention: 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 effectively When issues seem tangential or symptomatic of

other issues.

Conflict-Handling Intention: Accommodation Conflict-Handling Intention: Accommodation

When you find you’re 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 to

yourself and to satisfy others and maintain cooperation.

To build social credits for later issues. To minimize loss when outmatched and losing. When harmony and stability are especially important. To allow employees to develop by learning from

mistakes.

Conflict-Handling Intention: Compromise Conflict-Handling Intention: 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. As a backup when collaboration or competition is

unsuccessful.