0. Conflict

1. Conflict
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

2. Transitions in Conflict Thought
Traditional View of Conflict
The belief that all conflict is harmful and must be avoided.
Causes:
Poor communication
Lack of openness
Failure to respond to employee needs

3. 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.

4. Functional versus Dysfunctional Conflict
Conflict that supports the goals of the group and improves its performance.
Dysfunctional Conflict
Conflict that hinders group performance.

5. Types 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.

6. The Conflict Process

7. 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

8. Stage II: Cognition and Personalization
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.
Conflict Definition
Positive Feelings
Negative Emotions

9. Stage III: Intentions Intentions Decisions to act in a given way.
Cooperativeness:
Attempting to satisfy the other party’s concerns.
Assertiveness:
Attempting to satisfy one’s own concerns.

10. Dimensions of Conflict-Handling Intentions

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. Collaborating 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

14. Compromising You bend, I bend
Fundamental 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

15. When an issue is not as important to you as it is to the other person
Accommodating
I lose, you win
Fundamental 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

16. Fundamental premise: Associates "winning" a conflict with competition
Competing
I win, you lose
Fundamental 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

17. When the conflict is small and relationships are at stake
Avoiding
No winners, no losers
Fundamental 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

18. Stage IV: Behavior Conflict Management
The use of resolution and stimulation techniques to achieve the desired level of conflict.

19. Conflict-Intensity Continuum

20. Conflict 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

21. Conflict Management Techniques
Conflict Resolution Techniques
Communication
Bringing in outsiders
Restructuring the organization
Appointing a devil’s advocate

22. Stage 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.

23. Stage V: Outcomes Dysfunctional Outcomes from Conflict
Development of discontent
Reduced group effectiveness
Retarded communication
Reduced group cohesiveness
Infighting among group members overcomes group goals

24. NEGOTIATION
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

25. Negotiation 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.

26. Bargaining 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.

27. Distributive Versus Integrative Bargaining
Bargaining Distributive Integrative Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic
Available resources Fixed amount of Variable amount of resources 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

28. 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.

29. 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.)

30. Staking Out the Bargaining Zone

31. The Negotiation Process

32. Issues 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.

33. CROSS 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.

34. 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.

35. EXAMPLE: 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.

36. 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.

37. 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.

38. 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.

39. 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.

40. Third-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.

41. Third-Party Negotiations
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.

42. Conflict and Unit Performance

43. 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.

44. 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.

45. 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.

46. 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.

47. 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.