Conflict and Negotiation

Bob StretchSouthwestern College

Robbins & Judge

Organizational Behavior13th Edition

Conflict and NegotiationConflict and Negotiation

15-1© 2009 Prentice-Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

Chapter Learning ObjectivesChapter Learning Objectives

After studying this chapter, you should be able to:– Define conflict.

– Differentiate between the traditional, human relations, and interactionist views of conflict.

– Outline the conflict process.

– Define negotiation.

– Contrast distributive and integrative bargaining.

– Apply the five steps in the negotiation process.

– Show how individual differences influence negotiations.

– Assess the roles and functions of third-party negotiations.

– Describe cultural differences in negotiations.

© 2009 Prentice-Hall Inc. All rights reserved. 15-2

Conflict DefinedConflict Defined

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– 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

15-3

Transitions in Conflict ThoughtTransitions in Conflict Thought

Traditional View of Conflict

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

– Prevalent view in the 1930s-1940s

Conflict resulted from:

– Poor communication

– Lack of openness

– Failure to respond to employee needs


Continued Transitions in Conflict ThoughtContinued Transitions in Conflict Thought

Human Relations View of Conflict– The belief that conflict is a natural and inevitable outcome in

any group

– Prevalent from the late 1940s through mid-1970s

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

– Current view


Forms of Interactionist ConflictForms of Interactionist Conflict


Types of Interactionist ConflictTypes of Interactionist Conflict

Task Conflict– Conflicts over content and goals of the work

– Low-to-moderate levels of this type are FUNCTIONAL

Relationship Conflict– Conflict based on interpersonal relationships

– Almost always DYSFUNCTIONAL

Process Conflict– Conflict over how work gets done

– Low levels of this type are FUNCTIONAL


Sources of ConflictSources of Conflict

ConflictConflictConflictConflict

StatusStatusinconsistencyinconsistency

StatusStatusinconsistencyinconsistency

Different goalsDifferent goals& time horizons& time horizons

Different goalsDifferent goals& time horizons& time horizons

Scarce Scarce ResourcesResources

Scarce Scarce ResourcesResources

IncompatibleIncompatibleevaluation &evaluation &

RewardReward

IncompatibleIncompatibleevaluation &evaluation &

RewardReward

TaskTaskInterdependencyInterdependency

TaskTaskInterdependencyInterdependency

OverlappingOverlappingAuthorityAuthority

OverlappingOverlappingAuthorityAuthority

Sources of ConflictSources of Conflict

1. Different goals and time horizons: different groups have differing goals.

Production focuses on efficiency; Marketing on sales.

2. Overlapping authority: two or more managers claim authority for the same activities.

Leads to conflict between the managers and workers.

3. Task Interdependencies: one member of a group fails to finish a task that another depends on.

This makes the worker that is waiting fall behind.

4. Incompatible Evaluation or reward system: workers are evaluated for one thing, but are told to do something different.

Groups rewarded for low cost but firm needs higher service.

5. Scarce Resources: managers can conflict over allocation of resources.

When all resources are scarce, managers can fight over allocations.

6. Status inconsistencies: some groups have higher status than others.

Leads to managers feeling others are favored.

CONDITIONS LEADING TO CONFLICT SITUATIONS IN ORGANIZATIONS

CONDITIONS LEADING TO CONFLICT SITUATIONS IN ORGANIZATIONS

Ambiguous jurisdictions Conflict of interest Communication barriers Dependence on one party Differentiation in organization Association of the parties Behaviour regulation Performance expectations Competition for limited resources Lack of cooperation Unresolved prior conflicts

The Conflict ProcessThe Conflict Process

We will focus on each step in a moment…

15-12

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

Important stage for two reasons:

1. Conflict is defined • Perceived Conflict

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

2. Emotions are expressed that have a strong impact on the eventual outcome• Felt Conflict

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

15-14

Stage III: IntentionsStage III: Intentions

Intentions– Decisions to act in a given way– Note: behavior does not always accurate reflect intent

Dimensions of conflict-handling intentions:– Cooperativeness

• Attempting to satisfy the other party’sconcerns

– Assertiveness• Attempting to satisfy

one’s own concerns


E X H I B I T 15-2E X H I B I T 15-2

CONFLICT MANAGEMENTCONFLICT MANAGEMENT It refers to interventions that alter the level and form

of conflict in ways that maximize its benefits and minimize its dysfunctional consequences.

Depending on people’s intentions in a given situation, the behaviour of conflicting parties can range from full cooperation to complete confrontation.

Two intentions determining the type of conflict-handling behaviour are “assertiveness” and “cooperation”.

Assertiveness refers to an attempt to confront the other party and Co-operation refers to an attempt to find an agreeable solution.

Conflict Management StylesConflict Management Styles

(Motivation to satisfy one’s own interest)

Con

cern

for

C

once

rn f

or S

elf

Sel

f

Concern for Concern for OthersOthers(motivation to satisfy(motivation to satisfy

Other party’sOther party’sInterest)Interest)

Low Low CooperationCooperation

High High CooperationCooperation

Low Assertiveness

High High AssertivenessAssertiveness

Conflict Management Strategies Conflict Management Strategies

Conflict Management Strategies Conflict Management Strategies There is a menu of strategies we can choose from

when in conflict situations: 1. Competing/Forcing – Forcing tries to win the

conflict at the other’s expense. People use formal authority or other power to satisfy their concerns without regard to the concerns of the party that they are in conflict with. (WIN-LOSE)

2. Accommodating – It involves giving in completely to the other side’s wishes, or at least cooperating with little or no attention to their own interest. (LOSE-WIN)

This style involves making unilateral concessions and unconditional promises, as well as offering help with no expectation of reciprocal help.

3. Avoiding - Not paying attention to the conflict and not taking any action to resolve it. It represents a low concern for both self and the other party; in other words, avoiders try to suppress thinking about the conflict. (LOSE-LOSE)

4. Collaborating – Cooperating with the other party to understand their concerns and expressing their own concerns in an effort to find a mutually and completely satisfactory solution.

Information sharing is an important feature of this style because for both parties collaborate to identify common ground and potential solutions that satisfy both (or all) of them. (WIN-WIN).

5. Compromising - Attempting to resolve a conflict by identifying a solution that is partially satisfactory to both parties, but completely satisfactory to neither. (WINSOME-LOSESOME).

Stage IV: BehaviorStage IV: Behavior

Conflict Management

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

Conflict-Intensity Continuum


E X H I B I T 15-3E X H I B I T 15-3

Conflict Resolution TechniquesConflict Resolution Techniques– Problem solving– Superordinate goals– Expansion of resources– Avoidance– Smoothing– Compromise– Authoritative command– Altering the human

variable– Altering the structural

variables– Communication

– Bringing in outsiders– Restructuring the

organization– Appointing a devil’s

advocate


E X H I B I T 15-4E X H I B I T 15-4

Stage V: OutcomesStage V: OutcomesFunctional

– 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

Dysfunctional– Development of discontent

– Reduced group effectiveness

– Retarded communication

– Reduced group cohesiveness

– Infighting among group members overcomes group goals

Creating Functional Conflict

– Reward dissent and punish conflict avoiders


NegotiationNegotiation

Negotiation (Bargaining)– A process in which two or more parties exchange goods

or services and attempt to agree on the exchange rate for them

Two General Approaches:– 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 Characteristic Distributive Bargaining

Integrative Bargaining

Goal Get all the pie you can Expand the pie

Motivation Win-Lose Win-Win

Focus Positions Interests

Information Sharing Low High

Duration of Relationships Short-Term Long-Term


E X H I B I T 15-5E X H I B I T 15-5

Distributive

Integrative

Source: Based on R. J. Lewicki and J. A. Litterer, Negotiation (Homewood, IL: Irwin, 1985), p. 280.

Bargaining Tactics and the Bargaining ZoneBargaining Tactics and the Bargaining Zone

Distributive Tactics– Make an aggressive

first offer

– Reveal a deadline

Integrative Tactics– Bargain in teams

– Put more issues on the table

– Don’t compromise

15-26

The Negotiation ProcessThe Negotiation Process

BATNA

– The Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement

– The lowest acceptable value (outcome) to an individual for a negotiated agreement

The “Bottom Line” for negotiations


E X H I B I T 15-7E X H I B I T 15-7

Individual Differences in Negotiation EffectivenessIndividual Differences in Negotiation Effectiveness

Personality Traits– Extroverts and agreeable people weaker at distributive

negotiation – disagreeable introvert is best– Intelligence is a weak indicator of effectiveness

Mood and Emotion– Ability to show anger helps in distributive bargaining– Positive moods and emotions help integrative bargaining

Gender– Men and women negotiate the same way, but may

experience different outcomes– Women and men take on gender stereotypes in negotiations:

tender and tough– Women are less likely to negotiate


Third-Party NegotiationsThird-Party Negotiations Four Basic Third-Party Roles

– 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.

– Conciliator• A trusted third party who provides an informal communication

link between the negotiator and the opponent

– Consultant• An impartial third party, skilled in conflict management, who

attempts to facilitate creative problem solving through communication and analysis


Global ImplicationsGlobal Implications

Conflict and Culture– Japanese and U.S. managers view conflict differently

– U.S. managers more likely to use competing tactics while Japanese managers are likely to use compromise and avoidance

Cultural Differences in Negotiations– Multiple cross-cultural studies on negotiation styles, for

instance:• American negotiators are more likely than Japanese bargainers

to make a first offer

• North Americans use facts to persuade, Arabs use emotion, and Russians used asserted ideals

• Brazilians say “no” more often than Americans or Japanese


Summary and Managerial ImplicationsSummary and Managerial Implications Conflict can be

constructive or destructive

Reduce excessive conflict by using:– Competition– Collaboration– Avoidance– Accommodation– Compromise

Integrative negotiation is a better long-term method


E X H I B I T 15-8E X H I B I T 15-8

Conflict and Negotiation

Documents

Transcript of Conflict and Negotiation