ob11_im14

8/19/2019 OB11_IM14

1/11

Robbins: Organizational Behavior Chapter Fourteen

CONFLICT AND NEGOTIATIONCHAPTER 14 OUTLINE

A Definition of Conflict

1. There are several common themes which underlie most definitions:

• The parties to it must perceive conflict.

• Commonalties in the definitions are opposition or incompatibility and some

form of interaction.

2. We define conflict as “a process that beins when one party perceives thatanother party has neatively affected! or is about to neatively affect!somethin that the first party cares about."

• This describes that point when an interaction “crosses over" to become an

inter#party conflict.

• $t encompasses the wide rane of conflicts that people e%perience in

orani&ations.

Transitions in Conflict Thouht

1. The traditional view of conflict arues that it must be avoided'it indicates amalfunctionin with the roup.

2. The human relations view arues that conflict is a natural and inevitableoutcome in any roup and that it need not be evil! but has the potential to be apositive force in determinin roup performance.

(. The inter#actionist approach proposes that conflict can be a positive force in aroup but e%plicitly arues that some conflict is absolutely necessary for aroup to perform effectively.

A. The Traditional View

1. This early approach assumed that all conflict was bad. Conflict wassynonymous with such terms that reinforced its neative connotation. )ydefinition! it was harmful and was to be avoided.

2. This view was consistent with the prevailin attitudes about roup behavior inthe 1*(+s and 1*,+s. Conflict was seen as a dysfunctional outcome resultinfrom poor communication! a lac- of openness and trust between people! andthe failure of manaers to be responsive to their employees.

B. The u!an Relations View

1. Conflict is a natural occurrence in all roups and orani&ations. ince it wasnatural and inevitable it should be accepted.

2. $t cannot be eliminated and may even contribute to roup performance.

(. The human relations view dominated conflict theory from the late 1*,+sthrouh the mid#1*/+s.

C. The "nteractionist View

1. The $nteractionist view is the one ta-en in this chapter.

2. This approach encouraes conflict on the rounds that a harmonious! peaceful!tran0uil! and cooperative roup is prone to becomin static and non#responsiveto needs for chane and innovation.

1

8/19/2019 OB11_IM14

2/11


(. roup leaders maintain enouh conflict to -eep the roup viable! self#critical!and creative.

,. Whether a conflict is ood or bad depends on the type of conflict.unctional vs. Dysfunctional Conflict

1. 3ot all conflicts are ood. unctional! constructive forms of conflict support theoals of the roup and improve its performance. Conflicts that hinder roupperformance are dysfunctional or destructive forms of conflict.

2. What differentiates functional from dysfunctional conflict4 5ou need to loo- atthe type of conflict.

• Tas# conflict relates to the content and oals of the wor-. 6ow#to#moderate

levels of tas- conflict are functional and consistently demonstrate apositive effect on roup performance because it stimulates discussion!improvin roup performance.

• Relationship conflict focuses on interpersonal relationships.

a. These conflicts are almost always dysfunctional.b. The friction and interpersonal hostilities inherent in relationship

conflicts increase personality clashes and decrease mutual

understandin.

• $rocess conflict relates to how the wor- ets done.

a. 6ow#levels of process conflict are functional and could enhance teamperformance.

b. or process conflict to be productive! it must be -ept low.c. $ntense aruments create uncertainty.

The Conflict 7rocess

A. %tage ": $otential Opposition or "nco!patibilit&

1. Co!!unication

• Communication as a source of conflict represents those opposin forces

that arise from semantic difficulties! misunderstandins! and “noise" in thecommunication channels.

• Differin word connotations! 8aron! insufficient e%chane of information!

and noise in the communication channel are all barriers to communicationand potential antecedents to conflict.

• emantic difficulties are a result of differences in trainin! selective

perception! and inade0uate information.

• The potential for conflict increases when either too little or too muchcommunication ta-es place.

• The channel chosen for communicatin can have an influence on

stimulatin opposition.

2. %tructure

• The term structure includes variables such as si&e! deree of

speciali&ation! 8urisdictional clarity! member#oal compatibility! leadershipstyles! reward systems! and the deree of dependence.

2

8/19/2019 OB11_IM14

3/11


• i&e and speciali&ation act as forces to stimulate conflict. The larer the

roup and more speciali&ed its activities! the reater the li-elihood ofconflict.

• The potential for conflict is reatest where roup members are youner

and turnover is hih.

• The reater the ambiuity in responsibility for actions lies! the reater the

potential for conflict.

• The diversity of oals amon roups is a ma8or source of conflict.

• A close style of leadership increases conflict potential.

• Too much reliance on participation may also stimulate conflict.

• 9eward systems! too! are found to create conflict when one members ain

is at anothers e%pense.

• inally! if a roup is dependent on another roup! opposin forces are

stimulated.

(. $ersonal variables

• $nclude individual value systems and personality characteristics. Certain

personality types lead to potential conflict.

• ;ost important is differin value systems. %hibit 1,#2 is alon two dimensions:

• Cooperativeness'“the deree to which one party attempts to satisfy the

other partys concerns."

• Assertiveness'“the deree to which one party attempts to satisfy his or

her own concerns."

3

8/19/2019 OB11_IM14

4/11


,. ive conflict#handlin intentions can be identified.

• Co!peting: When one person see-s to satisfy his or her own interests!

reardless of the impact on the other parties to the conflict

• Collaborating: When the parties to conflict each desire to fully satisfy the

concerns of all parties. The intention is to solve the problem by clarifyin

differences rather than by accommodatin.

• Avoiding: A person may reconi&e that a conflict e%ists and want to

withdraw from it or suppress it.

• Acco!!odating: When one party see-s to appease an opponent! that

party is willin to be self#sacrificin.

• Co!pro!ising: When each party to the conflict see-s to ive up

somethin! sharin occurs! resultin in a compromised outcome. There isno clear winner or loser! and the solution provides incomplete satisfactionof both parties concerns.

?. $ntentions provide eneral uidelines for parties in a conflict situation. Theydefine each partys purpose! but they are not fi%ed.

• They miht chane because of reconceptuali&ation or because of an

emotional reaction.

• @owever! individuals have preferences amon the f ive conflict#handlin

intentions.

• $t may be more appropriate to view the five conflict#handlin intentions as

relatively fi%ed rather than as a set of options from which individualschoose to fit an appropriate situation.

'. %tage "V: Behavior

1. tae $< is where conflicts become visible. The behavior stae includes thestatements! actions! and reactions made by the conflictin parties. Theseconflict behaviors are usually overt attempts to implement each partysintentions.

2. tae $< is a dynamic process of interaction conflicts e%ist somewhere alon acontinuum (%ee )*hibit +,-/.

• At the lower part of the continuum! conflicts are characteri&ed by subtle!

indirect! and hihly controlled forms of tension.

• Conflict intensities escalate as they move upward alon the continuum

until they become hihly destructive.

• unctional conflicts are typically confined to the lower rane of thecontinuum.

(. >%hibit 1,#, lists the ma8or resolution and stimulation techni0ues.

). %tage V: Outco!es

1. =utcomes may be functional'improvin roup performance! or dysfunctionalin hinderin it.

2. Functional outco!es

• @ow miht conflict act as a force to increase roup performance4

4

8/19/2019 OB11_IM14

5/11


• Conflict is constructive when it:

a. $mproves the 0uality of decisions.b. timulates creativity and innovation.c. >ncouraes interest and curiosity.d. 7rovides the medium throuh which problems can be aired and

tensions released.e. osters an environment of self#evaluation and chane.

•The evidence suests that conflict can improve the 0uality of decision#ma-in.

• Conflict is an antidote for roupthin-.

• Conflict challenes the status 0uo! furthers the creation of new ideas!

promotes reassessment of roup oals and activities! and increases theprobability that the roup will respond to chane.

• 9esearch studies in diverse settins confirm the functionality of conflict.

a. The comparison of si% ma8or decisions made durin the administrationof four different B presidents found that conflict reduced the chanceof roupthin-.

b. When roups analy&ed decisions that had been made by the individualmembers of that roup! the averae improvement amon the hih#conflict roups was /( percent reater than was that of those roupscharacteri&ed by low#conflict conditions.

• $ncreasin cultural diversity of the wor-force should provide benefits to

orani&ations.

a. @eteroeneity amon roup and orani&ation members can increasecreativity! improve the 0uality of decisions! and facilitate chane byenhancin member fle%ibility.

b. The ethnically diverse roups produced more effective and morefeasible ideas and hiher 0uality! uni0ue ideas than those produced bythe all#Anlo roup.

• imilarly! studies of professionals'systems analysts and research anddevelopment scientists'support the constructive value of conflict.

a. An investiation of 22 teams of systems analysts found that the moreincompatible roups were li-ely to be more productive.

b. 9esearch and development scientists have been found to be mostproductive where there is a certain amount of intellectual conflict.

). %tage V: Outco!es (cont./

(. '&sfunctional outco!es

• Bncontrolled opposition breeds discontent! which acts to dissolve common

ties and eventually leads to the destruction of the roup.

• Bndesirable conse0uences:

a. A retardin of communicationb. 9eductions in roup cohesivenessc. ubordination of roup oals to the primacy of infihtin between

members

• Conflict can brin roup functionin to a halt and potentially threaten the

roups survival.

• The demise of an orani&ation as a result of too much conflict is not as

5

8/19/2019 OB11_IM14

6/11

Robbins: Organizational Behavior Chapter Fourteenunusual as it miht first appear. =ne of 3ew 5or-s best#-nown law firms!hea ould! closed down solely because the + partners 8ust could notet alon.

,. Creatin functional conflict

• $f manaers accept the inter#actionist view toward conflict! they encourae

functional conflict.

?. Creatin functional conflict is a touh 8ob! particularly in lare Americancorporations.

• A hih proportion of people who et to the top are conflict avoiders.

• At least seven out of ten people in American business hush up when their

opinions are at odds with those of their superiors! allowin bosses to ma-emista-es even when they -now better.

• uch anti#conflict cultures are not tolerable in todays fiercely competitive

lobal economy.

E. This process fre0uently results in decisions and alternatives that previously hadnot been considered.

• =ne common inredient in orani&ations that successfully create functional

conflict is that they reward dissent and punish conflict avoiders.

• The real challene for manaers is when they hear news that they do not

want to hear.

• ;anaers should as- calm! even#tempered 0uestions: “Can you tell me

more about what happened4!" “What do you thin- we ouht to do4!" andoffer a sincere “Than- you."

F. 0egotiation

1. 0egotiation is a “process in which two or more parties e%chane oods or

services and attempt to aree upon the e%chane rate for them." We use theterms negotiation and bargaining interchaneably.

2. 3eotiation permeates the interactions of almost everyone in roups andorani&ations. or e%ample! labor barains with manaement.

(. 3ot so obvious! however!

• ;anaers neotiate with employees! peers! and bosses.

• alespeople neotiate with customers.

• 7urchasin aents neotiate with suppliers.

• A wor-er arees to answer a colleaues phone for a few minutes in

e%chane for some past or future benefit.

1. Bargaining %trategies

1. There are two eneral approaches to neotiation: distributive bargaining andintegrative bargaining . (%ee )*hibit +,-2/

3. 'istributive bargaining

• An e%ample of distributive barainin is buyin a car:

a. 5ou o out to see the car. $t is reat and you want it.b. The owner tells you the as-in price. 5ou do not want to pay that much.c. The two of you then neotiate over the price.

6

8/19/2019 OB11_IM14

7/11


• $ts most identifyin feature is that it operates under &ero#sum conditions.

Any ain $ ma-e is at your e%pense! and vice versa.

• The most widely cited e%ample of distributive barainin is in labor#

manaement neotiations over waes.

• The essence of distributive barainin is depicted in >%hibit 1,#E.

a. 7arties A and ) represent two neotiators.

b. >ach has a taret point that defines what he or she would li-e toachieve.

c. >ach also has a resistance point! which mar-s the lowest outcome thatis acceptable.

d. The area between these two points ma-es up each ones aspirationrane.

e. As lon as there is some overlap between A and )s aspiration ranes!there e%ists a settlement rane where each ones aspirations can be met.

• When enaed in distributive barainin! ones tactics focus on tryin to

et ones opponent to aree to ones specific taret point or to et as closeto it as possible.

1. Bargaining %trategies (cont./

(. "ntegrative bargaining

• An e%ample: 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.

a. The ne%t day! the sales rep and the firms credit manaer meet todiscuss the problem. They want to ma-e the sale! but do not want to

et stuc- with uncollectible debt.b. The two openly review their options.c. After considerable discussion! they aree on a solution that meets both

their needs. The sale will o throuh with a ban- uarantee that willensure payment if not made in E+ days.

• This e%ample operates under the assumption that there e%ists one or more

settlements that can create a win#win solution.

• $n terms of intra#orani&ational behavior! all thins bein e0ual! interative

barainin is preferable to distributive barainin.

• )ecause interative barainin builds lon#term relationships and

facilitates wor-in toether in the future! it bonds neotiators and allows

each to leave the barainin table feelin victorious.

• Distributive barainin! on the other hand! leaves one party a loser. $t

tends to build animosities and deepens divisions.

• Why do we not see more interative barainin in orani&ations4 The

answer lies in the conditions necessary for this type of neotiation tosucceed.

a. 7arties who are open with information and candid about their concernsb. A sensitivity by both parties to the others needsc. The ability to trust one another d. A willinness by both parties to maintain fle%ibility

7

8/19/2019 OB11_IM14

8/11


. The 0egotiation $rocess

1. A simplified model of the neotiation process is provided in >%hibit 1,#/.

2. $reparation and planning:

• Do your homewor-. What is the nature of the conflict4 What is the history

leadin up to this neotiation4 Who is involved! and what are their

perceptions of the conflict4 What do you want from the neotiation4 Whatare your oals4

• 5ou also want to prepare an assessment of what you thin- the other party

to your neotiations oals are.

a. When you can anticipate your opponents position! you are bettere0uipped to counter his or her aruments with the facts and fiuresthat support your position.

• =nce you have athered your information! use it to develop a stratey.

• Determine your and the other sides )est Alternative To a 3eotiated

Areement F)AT3AG.

a. 5our )AT3A determines the lowest value acceptable to you for aneotiated areement.

b. Any offer you receive that is hiher than your )AT3A is better than animpasse.

(. 'efinition of ground rules:

• Who will do the neotiatin4 Where will it ta-e place4 What time

constraints! if any! will apply4

• To what issues will neotiation be limited4 Will there be a specific

procedure to follow if an impasse is reached4

• Durin this phase! the parties will also e%chane their initial proposals or

demands.,. Clarification and 4ustification:

• When initial positions have been e%chaned! e%plain! amplify! clarify!

bolster! and 8ustify your oriinal demands

• This need not be confrontational.

• 5ou miht want to provide the other party with any documentation that

helps support your position.

?. Bargaining and proble! solving:

• The essence of the neotiation process is the actual ive and ta-e in tryin

to hash out an areement.

• Concessions will undoubtedly need to be made by both parties.

E. Closure and i!ple!entation:

• The final step'formali&in the areement that has been wor-ed out and

developin any procedures that are necessary for implementation andmonitorin

• ;a8or neotiations will re0uire hammerin out the specifics in a formal

8

8/19/2019 OB11_IM14

9/11

Robbins: Organizational Behavior Chapter Fourteencontract.

• or most cases! however! closure of the neotiation process is nothin

more formal than a handsha-e.

". "ssues in 0egotiation

1. The role of personalit& traits in negotiation

• Can you predict an opponents neotiatin tactics if you -now somethinabout hisHher personality4 The evidence says no.

• =verall assessments of the personality#neotiation relationship finds that

personality traits have no sinificant direct effect on either the baraininprocess or neotiation outcomes.

2. 1ender differences in negotiations

• ;en and women do not neotiate differently.

• A popular stereotype is that women are more cooperative! pleasant! and

relationship#oriented in neotiations than are men. The evidence does notsupport this.

• Comparisons between e%perienced male and female manaers find

women are:

a. 3either worse nor better neotiators.b. 3either more cooperative nor open to the other.c. 3either more nor less persuasive nor threatenin than are men.

• The belief that women are “nicer" is probably due to confusin ender and

the lac- of power typically held by women.

a. 6ow#power manaers! reardless of ender! attempt to placate theiropponents and to use softly persuasive tactics rather than directconfrontation and threats.

• Womens attitudes toward neotiation and toward themselves appear to bedifferent from mens.

a. ;anaerial women demonstrate less confidence in anticipation ofneotiatin and are less satisfied with their performance despiteachievin similar outcomes as men.

• Women may unduly penali&e themselves by failin to enae in

neotiations when such action would be in their best interests

9

8/19/2019 OB11_IM14

10/11


(. Cultural differences in negotiations

• 3eotiatin styles clearly vary across national cultures.

• The rench li-e conflict.

a. They ain reconition and develop their reputations by thin-in andactin aainst others.

b. They tend to ta-e a lon time in neotiatin areements! and they are

not overly concerned about whether their opponents li-e or disli-ethem.

• The Chinese also draw out neotiations but that is because they believe

neotiations never end.

a. Iust when you thin- you have reached a final solution! the Chinesee%ecutive miht smile and start the process all over aain.

b. 6i-e the Iapanese! the Chinese neotiate to develop a relationship anda commitment to wor- toether.

• Americans are -nown around the world for their impatience and their

desire to be li-ed.

a. Astute neotiators often turn these characteristics to their advantae.

• The cultural conte%t of the neotiation sinificantly influences the amount

and type of preparation for barainin! the emphasis on tas- versusinterpersonal relationships! the tactics used! etc.

• A study compared 3orth Americans! Arabs! and 9ussians neotiatin style!

how they responded to an opponents aruments! their approach toma-in concessions! and how they handled neotiatin deadlines.

• 3orth Americans tried to persuade others by relyin on facts and

appealin to loic.

a. They made small concessions early in the neotiation to establish arelationship and usually reciprocated the opponents concessions.

b. 3orth Americans treated deadlines as very important.

• The Arabs tried to persuade by appealin to emotion.

a. They countered opponents aruments with sub8ective feelins.b. They made concessions throuhout the barainin process and almost

always reciprocated opponents concessions.c. Arabs approached deadlines very casually.

• The 9ussians based their aruments on asserted ideals.

a. They made few! if any! concessions.b. Any concession offered by an opponent was viewed as a wea-ness

and almost never reciprocated.b. inally! the 9ussians tended to inore deadlines.

,. A second study loo-ed at verbal and nonverbal neotiation tactics e%hibited by3orth Americans! Iapanese! and )ra&ilians durin half#hour baraininsessions.

• )ra&ilians on averae said “3o" ( times compared to five times for the

Iapanese and nine times for the 3orth Americans.

• The Iapanese displayed more than five periods of silence lastin loner

than ten seconds durin the (+#minute sessions.

10

8/19/2019 OB11_IM14

11/11


• 3orth Americans averaed (.? such periods the )ra&ilians had none.

• The Iapanese and 3orth Americans interrupted their opponent about the

same number of times! but the )ra&ilians interrupted 2.? to ( times more often.

• inally! while the Iapanese and the 3orth Americans had no physical

contact with their opponents durin neotiations e%cept for handsha-in!the )ra&ilians touched each other almost five times every half#hour.

?. Third-part& negotiations

• When individuals or roup representatives reach a stalemate and are

unable to resolve their differences throuh direct neotiations! they mayturn to a third party.

• A mediator is a neutral third party who facilitates a neotiated solution by

usin reasonin and persuasion! suestin alternatives! and the li-e.

a. They are widely used in labor#manaement neotiations and in civilcourt disputes.

b. Their settlement rate is appro%imately E+ percent! with neotiatorsatisfaction at about /? percent.

c. The -ey to success'the conflictin parties must be motivated tobarain and resolve their conflict! intensity cannot be too hih! and themediator must be perceived as neutral and noncoercive.

• An arbitrator is “a third party with the authority to dictate an areement."

a. $t can be voluntary Fre0uestedG or compulsory Fforced on the parties bylaw or contractG.

b. The authority of the arbitrator varies accordin to the rules set by theneotiators.

c. The arbitrator miht be limited to choosin one of the neotiators lastoffers or to suestin an areement point that is nonbindin! or freeto choose and ma-e any 8udment.

d. The bi plus of arbitration over mediation is that it always results in a

settlement.e. Any neative depends on how “heavy#handed" the arbitrator appears.

• A conciliator is “a trusted third party who provides an informal

communication lin- amon parties."

a. This role was made famous by 9obert Duval in the first 1odfather film.b. Conciliation is used e%tensively in international! labor! family! and

community disputes.c. Comparin its effectiveness to mediation has proven difficult.d. Conciliators enae in fact findin! interpretin messaes! andpersuadin disputants to develop areements.

• A consultant is “a s-illed and impartial third party who attempts to facilitate

problem solvin throuh communication and analysis! aided by his or her-nowlede of conflict manaement."

a. $n contrast to the previous roles! the consultants role is to improverelations between the conflictin parties so that they can reach asettlement themselves.

b. This approach has a loner#term focus: to build new and positiveperceptions and attitudes between the conflictin parties.

11

ob11_im14

Documents