Lecture 9 Conflict and Negotiation

Definition of Conflict 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

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 and trust between people Failure to respond to employee needs

Continued Transitions in Conflict Thought Human Relations View of Conflict The belief that conflict is a natural and inevitable outcome in any group Human relations school advocated acceptance of conflict, which may sometimes benefit a group’s performance 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 Conflict Functional conflicts: - Conflicts which are constructively support the goals of the group and improve its performance Dysfunctional conflicts: Conflicts that destructively hinder group performance or involve personal attack.

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

The Conflict Process We will focus on each step in a moment… E X H I B I T 15-1 © 2009 Prentice-Hall Inc. All rights reserved.

Stage 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 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 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’s concerns Assertiveness one’s own concerns 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 15-2

Stage III: Intentions Dimensions of conflict-handling intentions: Competing One seeks to satisfy his/her own interests, regardless of the impact on other parties, one wins and the other losses. Collaborating Search for cooperation and a mutually beneficial outcome—Win- Win solution. Party solve problems by clarifying differences rather than by accommodating various points of view. Avoiding One to withdraw or suppress the conflicts. E.g. trying to ignore a conflict and avoid others with whom you disagree. Accommodating One attempts to place the other conflicting party’s interest above his/her own in order to maintain relationship. More self sacrificing Compromising Each party to a conflict seeks to give up something to results a compromised outcome. No clear winner or loser.

Stage IV: Behavior Conflict Management The use of resolution and stimulation techniques to achieve the desired level of conflict Conflict- Resolution Techniques: Problem solving: Face to face meeting of the conflicting parties to identifying the problems and resolving it through open discussions. Super-ordinate goals: Creating a shared goal that cannot be attained without the cooperation of each of the conflicting parties Expansion of Resources: If conflict is caused by scarcity of resources,I.e. money, promotion and opportunities– expansion of resources can create win-win solution. Avoidance: Withdrawal from or suppression of the conflict.

Stage IV: Behavior Conflict- Resolution Techniques (con’t): Smoothing: Playing down differences while emphasizing common interests between the conflicting parties Compromise: Each party to the conflicts gives up something of values. Authoritative command: Management uses its formal authority to resolve the conflict then communicates its desires to the parties involved. Altering the human variable: Using behavioral change techniques such as human relation training to alter attitudes and behaviors that cause conflict. Altering the structural variables: Changing the formal organization structure and the interaction patterns of conflicting parties through job redesign, transfer, creation of coordinating position.. Source: Based on S. P. Robbins, Managing Organizational Conflict: A Nontraditional Approach (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1974), pp. 59–89

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

Negotiation 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 bargaining strategies: Distributive Bargaining Negotiation that seeks to divide up a fixed amount of resources; a win-lose situation (labour-management negotiations over wages) Integrative Bargaining Negotiation that seeks one or more settlements that can create a win-win solution

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 Distributive

Bargaining 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 E X H I B I T 15-6 © 2009 Prentice-Hall Inc. 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 E X H I B I T 15-7

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

Global 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