Transcript Robbins & Judge Organizational Behavior 13e
Lecture 9 Conflict and Negotiation
S Chan Department of Business Administration
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… © 2009 Prentice-Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
E X H I B I T 15-1
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) – –
Personal Variables
– Reward systems (win-lose) Dependence/interdependence of groups Differing individual value systems – Personality types
Stage II: Cognition and Personalization
Important stage for two reasons:
1. Conflict is defined •
Perceived Conflict
– Awareness by one or more parties of the existence of conditions that create opportunities for conflict to arise 2. 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 • Attempting to satisfy 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: 1.
2.
3.
4.
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.
15-11
Stage IV: Behavior
Conflict- Resolution Techniques (con’t): 5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
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
– 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
Goal Motivation Focus Information Sharing Duration of Relationships
Distributive Bargaining
Get all the pie you can Win-Lose Positions Low Short-Term
Source:
Based on R. J. Lewicki and J. A. Litterer,
Negotiation
(Homewood, IL: Irwin, 1985), p. 280.
Integrative
Yours Mine
Distributive Integrative Bargaining
Expand the pie Win-Win Interests High Long-Term Yours Mine
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
© 2009 Prentice-Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
E X H I B I T 15-6 15-16
The Negotiation Process
BATNA
– The
B
est
A
lternative
T
o a
N
egotiated
A
greement – 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