0. Lecture 9 Conflict and Negotiation

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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.

5. 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

6. 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.

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
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

9. 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 With permission.
E X H I B I T 15-2

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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.

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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