1. Leadership: The Human Side of Project Management
Managing Conflict
© Peter Dominick, Michael R. Ryan 2007

2. Managing Conflict: Objectives
Understand sources of conflict
Understand the impact of culture and diversity on managing conflict
Discuss productive versus counterproductive approaches to conflict
Communication
Conflict management style/strategy
Discuss Negotiation
© Peter Dominick, Michael R. Ryan 2007

3. The Good, the Bad… the Inevitable
Conflict can:
Be source of new ideas and innovation
Promote diversity
Build loyalty, trust, understanding
Bring problems into open
Increase organizational commitment
Lead to better outcomes
Conflict can:
Increase stress
Divert energy and attention
Make leaders shift to authoritarian style
Increase negative stereotyping
Lead to group think
Most of us have ambivalent feelings about conflict. We understand it can increase ideas and productivity, but it is also something most of use would rather avoid.
The issue is not whether conflicts occur, they will. They key is understanding how to deal with them constructively.
Boulding, (1964) experimental study.
Groups that had a confederate who was devil’s advocate outperformed those groups who did not. But when given opportunity to expel a member they chose to remove the confederate.
“I know it adds value but it makes me feel uncomfortable.”
Inc Magazine 66% of small business owners said they preferred not adding a partner because of the increased potential for interpersonal conflict.
Messmer surveyed large sample of organizations - In response to question, “What % of your time is spent on resolving personality conflicts.” average response was 18% (roughly nine weeks out of the years)
© Peter Dominick, Michael R. Ryan 2007

4. Informational deficiency
Sources of Conflict
SOURCES OF CONFLICT
FOCUS OF CONFLICT
Personal differences
Perceptions and expectations
Informational deficiency
Misinformation and misrepresentation
Role incompatibility
Goals and responsibilities
Environmental stress
Resource scarcity and uncertainty
We often tend to attribute conflicts to ‘personality defects in others, but most conflict occurs from four extra-individual sources (fundamental attribution error) Personality defect
Personal differences, including values, work experiences, cognitive styles, priorities. These conflicts tend to revolve around differences in perceptions and expectations. They are the toughest to resolve because they are value based. Recognizing and acknowledging individual differences can help you at least to clearly define the issues underlying a given conflict.
Information deficiencies can occur when individuals receive information from different sources or misinterpret or misunderstand information. These deficiencies are fairly easy to resolve by repairing or restructuring the communication system.
Role incompatibility stems from conflicting expectations or pressures from job assignments within the organization and requires reconciling incompatible goals and responsibilities.
Environmental stress, stemming from resource scarcity or environmental uncertainty, arises in organizations undergoing rapid change or operating in a depressed economic environment.
Asks students for some suggested remedies for overcoming each of these type of conflicts do it separately)
© Peter Dominick, Michael R. Ryan 2007

5. Managing Conflict in Teams
Discuss Negotiation
Cognitive (task-oriented) vs. Affective Conflict (emotionally oriented)
Cognitive conflict improves performance; affective conflict degrades decision making in teams (Jehn, 1994, 1995)
Promotes dialogue
Information sharing
Synthesis
By debating differing task-related perspectives, team members are exposed to more information and encouraged to look at issues in a different light, leading to a richer, more comprehensive consideration of issues (Amason, 1996). This, in turn, promotes higher quality decisions as team members synthesize those perspectives and information into a decision that is superior to any individual perspective (Schweiger & Sanberg, & Rechner, 1989).
When decisions are comprehensive, of high quality, and consensual, they are more likely to lead to innovative project outcomes because team members consider diverse stimuli, information and perspectives, which is an important process for creativity (Mumford & Gustafson, 1988). Moreover, past research suggests that team members given greater voice in the decision-making process are less resistant to change and more likely to be innovative (Bowers & Seashore, 1966; Coch & French, 1948; Folger, 1977, Lawler & Hackman, 1969; Wall & Lischeron, 1977). These processes should also improve a team’s ability to achieve its project goals.
© Peter Dominick, Michael R. Ryan 2007

6. Managing Conflict in Teams
Results
Superior group decision to any individual perspective (Schweiger & Sanberg, & Rechner, 1989).
Higher levels of innovation (potentially)
Higher levels of commitment to decision (Amason, 1996)
By debating differing task-related perspectives, team members are exposed to more information and encouraged to look at issues in a different light, leading to a richer, more comprehensive consideration of issues (Amason, 1996). This, in turn, promotes higher quality decisions as team members synthesize those perspectives and information into a decision that is superior to any individual perspective (Schweiger & Sanberg, & Rechner, 1989).
When decisions are comprehensive, of high quality, and consensual, they are more likely to lead to innovative project outcomes because team members consider diverse stimuli, information and perspectives, which is an important process for creativity (Mumford & Gustafson, 1988). Moreover, past research suggests that team members given greater voice in the decision-making process are less resistant to change and more likely to be innovative (Bowers & Seashore, 1966; Coch & French, 1948; Folger, 1977, Lawler & Hackman, 1969; Wall & Lischeron, 1977). These processes should also improve a team’s ability to achieve its project goals.
© Peter Dominick, Michael R. Ryan 2007

7. What Can Team Leaders Do About Conflict?
While much of the conflict research has focused on attributes of the team as determinants of conflict, project leaders can impact cognitive conflict.
Team Conflict
(Constructive
vs. Affective)
Goal Clarity
Communication
Norms
(Contentious
vs. Collaborative)
Goal Clarity. Goals direct the attention, effort, and persistence of team members (Locke & Latham, 1990). Clear goals, i.e. goals that clarify the nature of the team task and performance outcomes, have been found to facilitate the development of cooperative performance strategies and improve team performance (Mitchell & Silver, 1990; Weingart & Weldon, 1991). In general, the influence of goals on team performance can be understood in terms of enhanced member motivation and in terms of enhanced coordination. For example, Earley and Northcraft (1989) found that clear team goals guide resource allocations and aid in planning. This in effect facilitates coordination. Thus, we propose cognitive conflict will be lower in teams aligned around a clear and common goal. We propose the following hypothesis.
Given what we know about cognitive and affective conflict, it would appear prudent to simply encourage cognitive conflict and discourage affective conflict in team decision making. This prescription, however, has been problematic. Teams reporting high levels of cognitive also report high levels of affective conflict. Indeed, in the majority of studies investigating both cognitive and affective conflict, significant positive correlations have been reported between the two types of conflict (see for example Amason & Sapienza, 1997; Mooney & Sonnenfeld, 2001; Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Yin, 1999).
One explanation for why these two types of conflict are consistently correlated involves the roles of trust and the attribution processes in teams and their impact on team communication (Amason & Sapienza, 1997; Simons & Peterson, 2000). Team members consistently interpret the behavior of other team members – they infer intentions, appraise motivations, and assess the accuracy of the arguments made. When team members distrust other team members, they are prone to attribute the team members they distrust as having a self-serving motive or hidden agenda. Furthermore, when the team members whose behavior, are distrusted become aware that they are distrusted, they tend to reciprocate that distrust (Zand, 1972). As a result, when trust is low, teams start to develop norms of communication that are of a more contentious in nature.
Affective conflict stems from team members taking cognitive (task) conflict personally (Amason, 1996; Amason & Sapeinza, 1997; Jehn, 1994, 1995). We contend that this will be even more true of teams that develop contentious communication norms. In other words, under conditions of high contentious communication, cognitive affective is more likely to spiral into affective conflict.
Trust Perceptions
© Peter Dominick, Michael R. Ryan 2007

8. Conflict Focus and Communication
Style
Issue
focused
People Focused
Contentious Communication X
Collaborative Communication
The way we communicate ( what we say and how we say it), can have important implications for conflict escalation. Research and experience has consistently shown that our choice of words can determine if or how conflicts are resolved.
People focused conflict - confrontational (win-lose) remains rooted in anger, moral indignation and emotions
Issue-focused - driven by rational problem solving, interest-based.
Contentious communication - reflects and is likely to exacerbate people focused conflict
Collaborative communication - reflects and supports issue focused conflict.
A key challenge we often face is getting someone else who is in a people focus to shift to issues. Our communication style will make a difference.
© Peter Dominick, Michael R. Ryan 2007

9. Two-Dimensional Model of Conflict Behavior
Assertive
Unassertive
Uncooperative Cooperative
Forcing Collaborating
Avoiding Accommodating
Compromising
Assertiveness (attempting to satisfy one’s own concern)
Importance of the issue
Five general strategies for managing conflict are arrayed along the dimensions of assertiveness and cooperativeness.
Forcing alternative (assertive, uncooperative) attempts to satisfy one’s needs at the expense of the other person’s.
Accommodating approach (cooperative, unassertive) satisfies the other party’s concerns while neglecting one’s own.
Avoiding approach (uncooperative, unassertive) neglects the interests of both parties by postponing or sidestepping the problem.
Compromising model, intermediate on both assertiveness and cooperativeness, tries to obtain some satisfaction for both parties.
Collaborating mode (cooperative, assertive) attempts to address fully the needs of both parties and is often called the problem-solving approach.
Cooperativeness
(attempting to satisfy the other party’s concerns)
© Peter Dominick, Michael R. Ryan 2007

10. Conflict Resolution by Conflict Type & Method of Resolution
While there appear to be strong links between dominant personality characteristics and preferred modes of conflict resolution, managers who can adopt different strategies depending upon the nature of the conflict are likely to be most effective. In one study 25 executives were asked to describe two conflict situations - one with bad results and one with good results. (see figure 4, p. 392, in your book)
Forcing - 23 incidents
Problem-solving - 12 incidents
Compromise 5 incidents
Avoidance -12 incidents
Problem-solving was always linked with good results, yet managers were still twice as likely to use forcing which was only likely to yield good results half of the time. Why then were the managers more likely to choose forcing? Answer probably is expediency. (e.g. Kipnis’ study of preferred influence strategies used by 300 managers found that they were most likely to become directive when the encountered resistance. ‘the iron law of power -the > the discrepancy in power, the > the probability that directive influence strategies will be used
Managers did not report a single instance of using problem-solving or compromising when confronting personal conflicts. These two approaches used most for resolving goal and reward structure conflicts.
general conclusions form this study:
1) No one approach to conflict is best in all situations
2) Ability to use a variety of techniques can help a manager be more effective
3) Formal power increase the likelihood that a manager will resort to forcing
Conflict Type
Communication Structure Personal
Good/Bad Good/Bad Good/Bad
Method of Resolution
© Peter Dominick, Michael R. Ryan 2007

11. Matching Conflict Management Approach with the Situation
Situational Considerations
Conflict Management Approach
Forcing
Accommodating
Compromising
Collaborating
Avoiding
Issue Importance
High
Low
Medium
Relationship Importance
Relative Power
Equal-High
Low-High
Time Constraints
Medium-High
While the collaboration approach consistently produces the fewest undesirable side effects, each approach has its place. Selecting a strategy incorporates both personality characteristics and situational conditions.
Researchers have identified fundamental personality characteristics of individuals who typically rely on different conflict management strategies.
Altruistic-nurturing -seeks gratification through promoting harmony
Assertive-directing -seeks gratification through self-assertion and directing the activities of others
Analytic-autonomizing - seeks gratification through self-sufficiency
Four salient situational variables should be considered are:The importance of the issue: The importance of the relationship; The relative power of the parties; Time constraints
Forcing approach- most appropriate when a conflict of values is involved and one feels compelled to defend the correct “position” or when a relationship is not important or sense of urgency is very high
Accommodating- when importance of relationship outweighs all other considerations or when the issues are not vital to you and when speed of resolution is important
Compromise -when issues are complex and of moderate importance and when both parties have strong interests in different parts of the situation. Also helps wen there is adequate time to negotiate.
Collaborate -when issues are critical and so is maintaining a relationship, especially helpful when power-levels are about the same
Avoidance - when one’s own stake is not high and there is no strong interpersonal need for getting involved.
© Peter Dominick, Michael R. Ryan 2007

12. Choosing a Conflict Management Strategy
Take a few minutes to read the Phelps, Inc. Case (p. 424).
What are the salient situational factors?
What do you think is the best conflict management strategy?
Give the above questions some thought before going on to the next slide
Phelp’s Case: p. 424
© Peter Dominick, Michael R. Ryan 2007

13. Conflict Management Strategy: Phelps Inc.
Situational characteristics in this case include high issue importance, high relationship importance, relatively equal power and low time constraints
These characteristics suggest that collaboration is the best approach. While compromise might seem like a reasonable approach the issue is probably too important for the department heads to simply split their differences.
© Peter Dominick, Michael R. Ryan 2007

14. Collaborative Approach
The collaborative approach to managing conflict generally produces the best results, but requires more skill than the other approaches.
Problem solving process: typically has the following phases: problem identification (sets the tone); solution generation, examination and agreement; implementation; and follow-up
© Peter Dominick, Michael R. Ryan 2007

15. Collaborative Approach
Guidelines for managing the problem identification and solution generation stages can be examined from the vantage point of:
the complaint initiator
the responder
and the mediator (if needed)
© Peter Dominick, Michael R. Ryan 2007

16. Collaborative Approach
Guidelines for the initiator:
Maintain personal ownership of the problem to reduce defensiveness in the respondent
Describe the problem in terms of behaviors, consequences and feelings
Avoid drawing evaluative conclusions and attributing motives to the respondent
© Peter Dominick, Michael R. Ryan 2007

17. Collaborative Approach
Guidelines for the initiator:
Persist until understood
Encourage two-way interaction
Approach multiple or complex problems incrementally
Focus on commonalities as the basis for requesting a change
© Peter Dominick, Michael R. Ryan 2007

18. Collaborative Approach
Guidelines for the responder:
Establish a climate for joint problem solving by showing genuine interest and concern
Seek additional information about the problem
Agree with some aspect of the complaint
Ask for acceptable alternatives
© Peter Dominick, Michael R. Ryan 2007

19. Collaborative Approach
Guidelines for the mediator:
Acknowledge that a conflict exists and propose an approach for solving it
In seeking out the perspectives of both parties, maintain a neutral posture regarding the disputants, if not the issues
Manage the discussion to insure fairness
© Peter Dominick, Michael R. Ryan 2007

20. Collaborative Approach
Guidelines for the mediator:
Facilitate exploration of solutions, rather than judge responsibility for the problem
Explore options by focusing on interests, not on positions
Guidelines for agreement and follow up stages for all roles
Ensure that all parties understand and support the agreed-upon plan
Establish a mechanism for follow-up
© Peter Dominick, Michael R. Ryan 2007

21. Negotiation Strategies
Closely related to conflict management strategies
Distributive (fixed sum; win-lose)
Akin to accommodating, avoiding compromising, confronting styles
To learn more about Integrative negotiation strategies read Getting to Yes By Fisher and Ury (1981and 1992) .
Super-ordinate goals both parties need to focus on what they share in common. Making shared goals more salient can increase the likelihood of eventually reaching agreement (e.g. We both want peace, we both want our organization to be profitable, we both want to be able to work together in the future).
Separate people from problem-depersonalizing the discussion increases the likelihood of success. Say, “That position is unreasonable” not, “You are unreasonable.”
Interests, not positions - Positions are demands, interests are the reasons behind a demand. Interests tend to be broader and more multi-faceted. Getting to interests requires and enables you to define conflicts more broadly which in turn opens up options. ‘the parable of the orange’
invent mutual gains option - While it is true that some negotiations will be distributive, this is not always the case. Using techniques like brainstorming can get both parties working together and the very least can create a more collaborative climate for reaching agreement. Mutual gains generation is an outgrowth of focusing on issues, not positions.
Use objective criteria - under the best of circumstances there are almost always bound to be incompatible goals. Rather than trying to test will it is far more productive to work with the other party to determine what is fair. This requires both parties to examine how fairness should be judged. This shifts the thinking from ‘getting what I want” to ’deciding what makes sense. “what is a fair way to evaluate the merits of our arguments.”
Define success in terms of gains, not losses - Our satisfaction with an outcome is impacted by the standards we use to judge it. Therefore, the integrative approach judges the value of solutions against reasonable standards.
© Peter Dominick, Michael R. Ryan 2007

22. Negotiation Strategies
Integrative (win-win)
Akin to collaborative style
Establish super-ordinate goals
Separate people from problems
Mutually agree on criteria for evaluating solutions
Focus on underlying issues, not positions
Invent options for mutual gains
Evaluate alternatives in relation to criteria
To learn more about Integrative negotiation strategies read Getting to Yes By Fisher and Ury (1981and 1992) .
Super-ordinate goals both parties need to focus on what they share in common. Making shared goals more salient can increase the likelihood of eventually reaching agreement (e.g. We both want peace, we both want our organization to be profitable, we both want to be able to work together in the future).
Separate people from problem-depersonalizing the discussion increases the likelihood of success. Say, “That position is unreasonable” not, “You are unreasonable.”
Interests, not positions - Positions are demands, interests are the reasons behind a demand. Interests tend to be broader and more multi-faceted. Getting to interests requires and enables you to define conflicts more broadly which in turn opens up options. ‘the parable of the orange’
invent mutual gains option - While it is true that some negotiations will be distributive, this is not always the case. Using techniques like brainstorming can get both parties working together and the very least can create a more collaborative climate for reaching agreement. Mutual gains generation is an outgrowth of focusing on issues, not positions.
Use objective criteria - under the best of circumstances there are almost always bound to be incompatible goals. Rather than trying to test will it is far more productive to work with the other party to determine what is fair. This requires both parties to examine how fairness should be judged. This shifts the thinking from ‘getting what I want” to ’deciding what makes sense. “what is a fair way to evaluate the merits of our arguments.”
Define success in terms of gains, not losses - Our satisfaction with an outcome is impacted by the standards we use to judge it. Therefore, the integrative approach judges the value of solutions against reasonable standards.
© Peter Dominick, Michael R. Ryan 2007

23. Lessons from Negotiators
If you want to win as much as you can, don’t try to win as much as you can.
“Only a fool holds out for the top dollar” (Joseph Kennedy)
“A successful negotiation isn’t one where I get everything and you get nothing” (Bob Woolf)
© Peter Dominick, Michael R. Ryan 2007

24. Lessons from Negotiators
Naïve cooperation in negotiation can make you vulnerable vulnerable to being taken advantage of
‘You’ve got to develop the reputation for being smart and honest. Find out everything you can before you sit down to talk. Information is power” (Bob Woolf)
Arguing over positions produces bad or no agreement
© Peter Dominick, Michael R. Ryan 2007

25. Positional Bargaining
Start with an extreme position, stubbornly hold it, deceive the other party as to your true views and make only small concessions
Requires a large number of individual decisions
Leads to dragging one’s feet, stonewalling and other tactics
© Peter Dominick, Michael R. Ryan 2007

26. Positional Bargaining
Start with an extreme position, stubbornly hold it, deceive the other party as to your true views and make only small concessions
Requires a large number of individual decisions
Leads to dragging one’s feet, stonewalling and other tactics
© Peter Dominick, Michael R. Ryan 2007

27. The Problem with Bargaining over Positions
You can get locked into the position
U.S. vs. Russia: negotiated # of inspections. U.S. said they wanted 10 a year, talks broke down but “inspection” was never defined.
As more attention is paid to positions less concern is given to the underlying concerns of the parties
Arguing over positions is inefficient
© Peter Dominick, Michael R. Ryan 2007

28. Principled Negotiation
Separate the people from the problem
Focus on interests, not positions
Generate a variety of possibilities before deciding what to do.
Insist that the results be based on some objective standard
© Peter Dominick, Michael R. Ryan 2007

29. Separate People from Problem
People have strong emotions and may have radically different perceptions
Emotions typically become tangled with the objective merits of the problem
Egos become identified with their positions
Participants should see themselves as working side by side, attacking the problem, not each other
© Peter Dominick, Michael R. Ryan 2007

30. Focus on Interests, Not Positions
Too much focus on the stated position can obscure people’s interests
Compromise between positions is not likely to produce a satisfactory result
Avoid having a bottom line
© Peter Dominick, Michael R. Ryan 2007

31. Insist on Using Objective Criteria
Some negotiators try to obtain a favorable result by being stubborn
rewards intransigence and produces arbitrary results
Can be countered by insisting that agreement must reflect some fair standard independent of the naked will of either side
market value, custom, law
Both parties can stop worrying about giving in and defer to the fair solution
© Peter Dominick, Michael R. Ryan 2007

32. Stages of Negotiation
Analysis: diagnose the situation, gather information, organize it, and think about it.
People problems, hostile emotions, unclear communication, what are interests, criteria
Planning: generate ideas, decide how to handle people problems, what are most important interests, what are realistic objectives? Generate additional options and criteria
© Peter Dominick, Michael R. Ryan 2007

33. Stages of Negotiation
Discussion: differences in perception, feelings are discussed. Jointly generate options that are mutually advantageous and seek agreement on objective standards.
© Peter Dominick, Michael R. Ryan 2007

34. Savage, Blair & Sorenson Decision Tree
Manager’s Priorities Other Party’s Priorities Suggested Strategies
Interactive
Strategies
Situations C1
C2, P2 S2
P1, C2
P2, C1 S1
A3, P1 A2 A1 C1 P1 S1 A1
Is the substantive outcome very important to the manager?
Is the relationship outcome very important to the manager?
Is the substantive outcome very important to the other party?
Is the relationship outcome very important to the other party?
C1: Trusting collaboration
C2: Principles collaboration
P1: Firm competition
P2: Soft competition
S1: Open subordination
S2: Focused subordination
A1: Active avoidance
(refuse to negotiate)
A2: Passive avoidance
(delegate negotiation)
A3: Responsive avoidance
(apply regulation)
Unilateral Strategies
Yes No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Picking Your Battles
This chart suggests that, as is the case with regard to conflict management in general, it makes sense to adjust your negotiation strategy depending upon the characteristics of the situation. In this particular model, your negotiation strategy can depend upon:
I. Your priorities: A) How important is the outcome to you? B) How important is the relationship to you?
II. The other parties priorities A) How important is the outcome to them? B) How important is the relationship to them?
© Peter Dominick, Michael R. Ryan 2007

35. Summary of Models of Conflict Management
Problem-
solving
process
Personal preferences
Source of conflict
Strategy selection
Dispute Resolution
Context characteristics
© Peter Dominick, Michael R. Ryan 2007

36. Educational Pension Investment Case
Follow up questions
1. Did EPI make a mistake in hiring Mike?
2. Is Dan making a mistake by allowing Mike to leave?
3. What is the difference in resolving a single- cause conflict versus a multiple- cause conflict?
© Peter Dominick, Michael R. Ryan 2007

37. Educational Pension Investment Case
Discuss whether the relationship between causes is multiple or additive.
4. Why did the forceful approach not work in this situation?
5. Why does Dan appear reluctant to be more forceful?
© Peter Dominick, Michael R. Ryan 2007