Conflict and Negotiation 14 Conflict and Negotiation Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Conflict & Negotiation Week 10

Chapter 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. Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Conflict 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 Conflict primarily deals with perception. If nobody thinks there is conflict, then no conflict exists. Conflict can be experienced in an organization through many different avenues. It can be that the goals of the individuals are incompatible or there is a difference in opinion over the interpretation of facts. Many conflicts also arise through disagreements about how people should behave. Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall (c) 2008 Prentice-Hall, All rights reserved.

Transitions 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 The traditional view of conflict believes that conflict is bad and it should be avoided as much as possible. This view was more prevalent in the 1930’s and 40’s than it is today. This view held that conflict was the result of poor communication, lack of openness, or failure to respond to employee needs. All these things are negative and can be fixed so management thought that conflict could be fixed and should be fixed. Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall (c) 2008 Prentice-Hall, All rights reserved.

Continued 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 The views of conflict have shifted over the years and have developed into more acceptance of conflict as a natural and inevitable outcome of group dynamics. This idea was prevalent in the late 40’s – 70’s and was called the Human Relations view of conflict. The current view on conflict is that it is not only a positive force in a group but it is actually necessary for a group to perform effectively. This is called the interactionist view of conflict and is widely accepted today. Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall (c) 2008 Prentice-Hall, All rights reserved.

Forms of Interactionist Conflict Functional Conflict Conflict that supports the goals of the group and improves its performance Dysfunctional Conflict Conflict that hinders group performance The interactionist view of conflict does recognize that even though functional conflict can support the group goals and improve their performance there is also dysfunctional conflict that hinders group performance. This type of conflict should be avoided, controlled, or minimized as much as possible. Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall (c) 2008 Prentice-Hall, All rights reserved.

Types 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 There are many types of interactionist conflict including task, relationship, and process. Task conflict arises when there is conflict over the content and/or goals of the work. If this type of conflict exists at low to moderate levels, then this is a functional conflict that can help individuals seek clarification or new ideas on how to accomplish their goals. Relationship conflict is based on problems between individuals and is almost always dysfunctional. Process conflict occurs when there is disagreement on how the work gets done. Low levels of process conflict represent functional conflict. Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall (c) 2008 Prentice-Hall, All rights reserved.

The Conflict Process We will focus on each step in a moment… The conflict process is outlined above. In the following slides we will look at each step individually. E X H I B I T 14-1 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall (c) 2008 Prentice-Hall, All rights reserved.

Stage I: Potential Opposition or Incompatibility Communication Semantic difficulties, misunderstandings, over communication 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 one of the conflict process is potential opposition or incompatibility. In this stage there are three main conditions that can cause conflict to arise. They are communication, structure, and personal variables. Communication may cause conflict when words mean different things to different people and misunderstandings result. Communication can be functional to a point, but when too much communication is given, it can cause frustrations and sometimes there are barriers in place to effectively hear what is being communicated. Structure can cause conflict when people are confused about their roles or the amount of authority they have. If goals are not well-defined or different for different group members, that can cause conflicts. Also leadership styles may cause conflict if it is not a style group members respond well to. Reward systems and dependency issues may also be sources of conflict. Personal variables will cause conflicts when there are different value systems represented and personality types are at odds. These factors can bring about conflict and set the stage for conflict to occur. Stage two then talks about what comes next. Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall (c) 2008 Prentice-Hall, All rights reserved.

Stage II: Cognition and Personalization Important stage for two reasons: Conflict is defined Perceived Conflict Awareness by one or more parties of the existence of conditions that create opportunities for conflict to arise 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 Stage two looks at the recognition or cognition of the conflict and the personalization or the emotional part of the conflict. As stated earlier, in order for conflict to be present, there must be an awareness of its existence, defined as perceived conflict. Once people are aware of the conflict, emotions are expressed that can impact the outcome of the conflict – this is defined as felt conflict. Emotions can include anxiety, tension, frustration, or hostility. Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall (c) 2008 Prentice-Hall, All rights reserved.

Stage III: Intentions Intentions Decisions to act in a given way Note: behavior does not always accurately reflect intent Dimensions of conflict-handling intentions: Cooperativeness Attempting to satisfy the other party’s concerns Assertiveness one’s own concerns Stage three starts to look at the intentions of the individuals involved. These intentions include the determination to act in a certain way, but it is important to realize behavior does not always accurately reflect intention. Sometimes people act out of emotion and not rational thinking. There are competing dimensions of conflict-handling intentions. One can be motivated by cooperativeness or attempting to satisfy the other party’s concerns or assertiveness, attempting to satisfy one’s own concerns. As the exhibit in this slide shows, there are also variations of those two competing claims. Source: K. Thomas, “Conflict and Negotiation Processes in Organizations,” in M.D. Dunnette and L.M. Hough (eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2nd ed., vol. 3 (Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1992), p. 668. With permission. E X H I B I T 14-2 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall (c) 2008 Prentice-Hall, All rights reserved.

Stage IV: Behavior Conflict Management Conflict-Intensity Continuum The use of resolution and stimulation techniques to achieve the desired level of conflict Conflict-Intensity Continuum Stage four moves us beyond intentions to the chosen behavior in the conflict. Conflict management is using behavior such as resolution and stimulation techniques to manage how much conflict is present. The conflict-intensity continuum in this slide shows the escalation of conflict from zero conflict to annihilatory conflict. Source: Based on S.P. Robbins, Managing Organizational Conflict: A Nontraditional Approach (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1974), pp. 93–97; and F. Glasi, “The Process of Conflict Escalation and the Roles of Third Parties,” in G.B.J. Bomers and R. Peterson (eds.), Conflict Management and Industrial Relations (Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff, 1982), pp. 119–40. E X H I B I T 14-3 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall (c) 2008 Prentice-Hall, All rights reserved.

Conflict 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 There are a number of techniques available to help work through conflict. Some ideas include problem solving, increasing communication, and restructuring the organization. Each technique chosen needs to reflect the situation and the people involved in order to be an effective conflict resolution technique. Source: Based on S. P. Robbins, Managing Organizational Conflict: A Nontraditional Approach (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1974), pp. 59–89 E X H I B I T 14-4 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall (c) 2008 Prentice-Hall, All rights reserved.

Stage V: Outcomes Functional Dysfunctional 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 Stage five looks at the outcomes of conflict resolution. Functional outcomes include increasing group performance, encouraging interest and curiosity, and creating an environment for self-evaluation and change. Dysfunctional outcomes include discontent workers, reduced group cohesiveness, and infighting. In order to create functional conflict, it is important to reward dissent and punish conflict avoiders. Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall (c) 2008 Prentice-Hall, All rights reserved.

Negotiation Negotiation (Bargaining) Two General Approaches: 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 Having a good understanding of conflict and conflict resolution, it is now important to look at negotiation. Negotiation or bargaining is the process where the people involved work on creating a deal that is mutually beneficial. There are two main approaches – distributive and integrative. Distributive bargaining seeks to divide up a fixed amount of resources and often creates a win/lose situation. Integrative bargaining seeks one or more settlements that can create a win-win situation for all parties involved. Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall (c) 2008 Prentice-Hall, All rights reserved.

Distributive 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 Mine Yours Source: Based on R. J. Lewicki and J. A. Litterer, Negotiation (Homewood, IL: Irwin, 1985), p. 280. Mine Yours Integrative The chart on this slide compares the two different bargaining approaches in regards to different criteria. Distributive E X H I B I T 14-5 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall (c) 2008 Prentice-Hall, All rights reserved.

The 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 The grid in this slide outlines the steps of the negotiation process: Preparation and planning, definition of ground rules, clarification and justification, bargaining and problem solving, and closure and implementation. You should determine your and the other party’s BATNA before proceeding with negotiations. BATNA represents the Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement or the lowest acceptable value you will take for a negotiated agreement. Then anything above your BATNA is a good negotiated outcome. E X H I B I T 14-7 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall (c) 2008 Prentice-Hall, All rights reserved.

Individual 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 Many individual differences are interwoven in the negotiation process and impact the effectiveness of the outcomes. Personality traits will impact outcomes as extroverts tend to be weaker at negotiation because they will want people to like them. Intelligence is not an indicator of effective negotiation skills. Mood and emotion can impact negotiations as anger is often an effective tool in distributive bargaining, whereas positive moods are helpful in integrative bargaining situations. Gender can also impact negotiation effectiveness. Men and women tend to approach negotiations in the same way but may view the outcomes differently. Women may appear more tender in the process where men come across as tough. On the average, men are more likely to be negotiators than women. Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall (c) 2008 Prentice-Hall, All rights reserved.

Third-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 Organizations today are often utilizing third party negotiators to work through conflicts. They may use a mediator who is a neutral third party helping to facilitate a negotiated solution by using reason, persuasion, and suggestions for alternatives. They may use an arbitrator who helps to negotiate solutions but has the authority to dictate an agreement. A conciliator may also be brought in who is a trusted third party who provides informal communication between the parties. Or a consultant may be utilized as a skilled conflict manager who will attempt to facilitate creative problem solving through communication and analysis. Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall (c) 2008 Prentice-Hall, All rights reserved.

Global Implications Conflict and Culture Japanese and U.S. managers view conflict differently U.S. managers are 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 use asserted ideals Brazilians say “no” more often than Americans or Japanese There are numerous global implications in the area of conflict as different cultures will view conflict through unique lenses. For example, U.S. managers are more likely to use competing tactics whereas Japanese managers will tend toward compromise and avoidance. The different viewpoints of conflict will play out in the arena of negotiations and the styles utilized. American negotiators will often make the first offer where Japanese negotiators will wait. North Americans use facts to persuade, Arabs use emotions, and Russians will speak more in ideals. Brazilians tend to say no when negotiating much more than American or Japanese negotiators will do so. Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall (c) 2008 Prentice-Hall, All rights reserved.

Summary 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 Conflict is a natural part of the organizational context and it can be constructive or destructive. Excess conflict can be reduced through competition, collaboration, avoidance, accommodation, or compromise. In the end, it is best to seek a negotiation strategy that is a win-win for all parties. E X H I B I T 14-8 Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall (c) 2008 Prentice-Hall, All rights reserved.