CkBooks Online – Free Online Books

Overview

Many people automatically assume that conflict is related to lower group and organizational performance. This chapter has demonstrated that this assumption is frequently incorrect. Conflict can be either constructive or destructive to the functioning of a group or unit. As shown in Exhibit 14-8, levels of conflict can be either too high or too low. Either extreme hinders performance. An optimal level is where there is enough conflict to prevent stagnation, stimulate creativity, allow tensions to be released, and initiate the seeds for change, yet not so much as to be disruptive or deter coordination of activities.

Inadequate or excessive levels of conflict can hinder the effectiveness of a group or an organization, resulting in reduced satisfaction of group members, increased absence and turnover rates, and, eventually, lower productivity. On the other hand, when conflict is at an optimal level, complacency and apathy should be minimized, motivation should be enhanced through the creation of a challenging and questioning environment with a vitality that makes work interesting, and there should be the amount of turnover needed to rid the organization of misfits and poor performers. What advice can we give managers faced with excessive conflict and the need to reduce it? Do not assume there is one conflict-handling intention that will always be best! You should select an intention appropriate for the situation. The following provides some guidelines:

Use 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 are right; and against people who take advantage of noncompetitive behavior.

Use 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; and to work through feelings that have interfered with a relationship.

Use 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 more effectively; and when issues seem tangential or symptomatic of other issues.

Use accommodation when you find you are 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 yourself and to satisfy others and maintain cooperation; to build social credits for later issues; to minimize loss when you are outmatched and losing; when harmony and stability are especially important; and to allow employees to develop by learning from mistakes.

Use 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; and as a backup when collaboration or competition is unsuccessful.

Definition – Conflict

“a process which begins when one party perceives that the other is frustrated, or is about to frustrate, some concern of his (or her).

• Perceived by the parties
• Parties are in opposition to one another
• At least one party is blocking the goal attainment of the other party
• Goals can be tangible or psychological –Money –Task Achievement –Happiness

Types of Conflict Task conflict

Conflict over content and goals of the work

Relationship conflict

Conflict based on interpersonal relationships

Process conflict

Conflict over how work gets done

Sources of conflict

• Organizational hierarchy
• Competition for scarce resources
• Self-image & stereotypical views of others
• Differing goals & objectives
• Failures & resultant blame fixing
• Poor coordination of activities

Conflict Management Styles

Avoiding -deliberate decision to take no action on a conflict or to stay out of a conflict Accommodating -concern that the other party’s goals be met but relatively unconcerned with getting

What is negotiation?

1.  Negotiation is a “process in which two or more parties exchange goods or services and attempt to agree upon the exchange rate for them.” We use the terms negotiation and bargaining interchangeably.

2.  Negotiation permeates the interactions of almost everyone in groups and organizations. For example, labor bargains with management. \

3.  Not so obvious, however,

a. Managers negotiate with

employees, peers, and bosses.

b.Salespeople negotiate with customers.

c.Purchasing agents negotiate with suppliers. A worker agrees to answer a colleague’s phone for a few minutes in exchange for some past or future benefit.

Negotiation – a joint process of finding a mutually acceptable solution to a complex conflict

Useful under these conditions

• Two or more parties
• Conflict of interest between the parties
• Parties are willing to negotiate
• Parties prefer to work together rather than to fight openly, give in, break off contact, or take

the dispute to a higher authority

Approaches to Negotiation

1.  There are two general approaches to negotiation: distributive bargaining and integrative bargaining.

2.  Distributive bargaining

• An example of distributive bargaining is buying a car:
• You go out to see the car. It is great and you want it.
• The owner tells you the asking price. You do not want to pay that much.
• The two of you then negotiate over the price.
• Its most identifying feature is that it operates under zero-sum conditions. Any gain I make is at your expense, and vice versa.
• The most widely cited example of distributive bargaining is in labor-management negotiations over wages.
• Parties A and B represent two negotiators.
• Each has a target point that defines what he or she would like to achieve.
• Each also has a resistance point, which marks the lowest outcome that is acceptable.
• The area between these two points makes up each one’s aspiration range.

As long as there is some overlap between A and B’s aspiration ranges, there exists a settlement range where each one’s aspirations can be met.

• When engaged in distributive bargaining, one’s tactics focus on trying to get one’s opponent to agree to one’s specific target point or to get as close to it as possible.

Integrative bargaining

• An example: A sales rep calls in the order and is told that the firm cannot approve credit to this customer because of a past slow-pay record.
• The next day, the sales rep and the firm’s credit manager meet to discuss the problem. They want to make the sale, but do not want to get stuck with uncollectable debt.
• The two openly review their options.
• After considerable discussion, they agree on a solution that meets both their needs. The sale will go through with a bank guarantee that will ensure payment if not made in 60 days.
• This example operates under the assumption that there exists one or more settlements that can create a win-win solution.
• In terms of intra-organizational behavior, all things being equal, integrative bargaining is preferable to distributive bargaining.
• Because integrative bargaining builds long-term relationships and facilitates working together in the future, it bonds negotiators and allows each to leave the bargaining table feeling victorious.
• Distributive bargaining, on the other hand, leaves one party a loser. It tends to build animosities and deepens divisions.
• Why do we not see more integrative bargaining in organizations? The answer lies in the conditions necessary for this type of negotiation to succeed.
• Parties who are open with information and candid about their concerns
• A sensitivity by both parties to the other’s needs
• The ability to trust one another
• A willingness by both parties to maintain flexibility

The Process of Negotiation

1. Preparation and planning:

• Do your homework. What is the nature of the conflict? What is the history leading up to this negotiation? Who is involved, and what are their perceptions of the conflict? What do you want from the negotiation? What are your goals?
• You also want to prepare an assessment of what you think the other party to your negotiation’s goals are.
• When you can anticipate your opponent’s position, you are better equipped to counter his or her arguments with the facts and figures that support your position.
• Once you have gathered your information, use it to develop a strategy.
• Determine your and the other side’s Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA).
• Your BATNA determines the lowest value acceptable to you for a negotiated agreement.
• Any offer you receive that is higher than your BATNA is better than an impasse.

2. Definition of ground rules:

• Who will do the negotiating? Where will it take place? What time constraints, if any, will apply?
• To what issues will negotiation be limited? Will there be a specific procedure to follow if an impasse is reached?
• During this phase, the parties will also exchange their initial proposals or demands.

3. Clarification and justification:

• When initial positions have been exchanged, explain, amplify, clarify, bolster, and justify your original demands
• This need not be confrontational.
• You might want to provide the other party with any documentation that helps support your position.

4. Bargaining and problem solving:

• The essence of the negotiation process is the actual give and take in trying to hash out an agreement.
• Concessions will undoubtedly need to be made by both parties.

5. Closure and implementation:

• The final step—formalizing the agreement that has been worked out and developing any procedures that are necessary for implementation and monitoring
• Major negotiations will require hammering out the specifics in a formal contract.
• For most cases, however, closure of the negotiation process is nothing more formal than a handshake.

Mapping the Negotiation

• Describe the problem of the negotiation
• Identify the people involved
• Use empathy to analyze the situation
• Record participants’ needs and fears about the problem

Conducting the Negotiation

• Use an appropriate negotiation style
• Use suitable language
• Use effective responding and listening techniques
• Identify needs and wants
• Set up the negotiation
• Create the non-verbal environment
• Start the negotiation
• Deal with conflict during the negotiation
• Achieve a negotiated outcome

Third-party negotiations

• When individuals or group representatives reach a stalemate and are unable to resolve their differences through direct negotiations, they may turn to a third party.
• A mediator is a neutral third party who facilitates a negotiated solution by using reasoning and persuasion, suggesting alternatives, and the like.
• They are widely used in labor-management negotiations and in civil court disputes.
• Their settlement rate is approximately 60 percent, with negotiator satisfaction at about 75 percent.

c. The key to success—the conflicting parties must be motivated to bargain and resolve their conflict, intensity cannot be too high, and the mediator must be perceived as neutral and no coercive.

Issues in Negotiation

The role of personality traits in negotiation

• Can you predict an opponent’s negotiating tactics if you know something about his/her personality? The evidence says no.
• Overall assessments of the personality-negotiation relationship finds that personality traits have no significant direct effect on either the bargaining process or negotiation outcomes.

Gender differences in negotiations

• Men and women do not negotiate differently.
• A popular stereotype is that women are more cooperative, pleasant, and relationship-oriented in negotiations than are men. The evidence does not support this.
• Comparisons between experienced male and female managers find women are:
• Neither worse nor better negotiators.
• Neither more cooperative nor open to the other.
• b. Neither more nor less persuasive nor threatening than are men.
• The belief that women are “nicer” is probably due to confusing gender and the lack of power typically held by women.
• Low-power managers, regardless of gender, attempt to placate their opponents and to use softly persuasive tactics rather than direct confrontation and threats.
• Women’s attitudes toward negotiation and toward themselves appear to be different from men’s.
• Managerial women demonstrate less confidence in anticipation of negotiating and are less satisfied with their performance despite achieving similar outcomes as men.
• Women may unduly penalize themselves by failing to engage in negotiations when such action would be in their best interests.

Cultural differences in negotiations

• Negotiating styles clearly vary across national cultures.
• The French like conflict.
• They gain recognition and develop their reputations by thinking and acting against others.
• They tend to take a long time in negotiating agreements, and they are not overly concerned about whether their opponents like or dislike them.
• The Chinese also draw out negotiations but that is because they believe negotiations never end.
• Just when you think you have reached a final solution, the Chinese executive might smile and start the process all over again.
• Like the Japanese, the Chinese negotiate to develop a relationship and a commitment to work together.
• Americans are known around the world for their impatience and their desire to be liked.
• Astute negotiators often turn these characteristics to their advantage.

The cultural context of the negotiation significantly influences the amount and type of preparation for bargaining, the emphasis on task versus interpersonal relationships, the tactics used, etc.

A study compared North Americans, Arabs, and Russians negotiating style, how they responded to an opponent’s arguments, their approach to making concessions, and how they handled negotiating deadlines.

• North Americans tried to persuade others by relying on facts and appealing to logic.
• They made small concessions early in the negotiation to establish a relationship and usually reciprocated the opponent’s concessions.
• North Americans treated deadlines as very important.
• The Arabs tried to persuade by appealing to emotion.
• They countered opponent’s arguments with subjective feelings.
• They made concessions throughout the bargaining process and almost always reciprocated opponents’ concessions.
• Arabs approached deadlines very casually.
• The Russians based their arguments on asserted ideals.
• They made few, if any, concessions.
• Any concession offered by an opponent was viewed as a weakness and almost never reciprocated.
• Finally, the Russians tended to ignore deadlines.

A second study looked at verbal and nonverbal negotiation tactics exhibited by North Americans, Japanese, and Brazilians during half-hour bargaining sessions.

• Brazilians on average said “No” 83 times compared to five times for the Japanese and nine times for the North Americans.
• The Japanese displayed more than five periods of silence lasting longer than ten seconds during the 30-minute sessions.
• North Americans averaged 3.5 such periods; the Brazilians had none.
• The Japanese and North Americans interrupted their opponent about the same number of times, but the Brazilians interrupted 2.5 to 3 times more often.
• Finally, while the Japanese and the North Americans had no physical contact with their opponents during negotiations except for handshaking, the Brazilians touched each other almost five times every half-hour.