Organizational Behavior: Conflict and Negotiation Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran.

Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran. Conflict Conflict: “The process in which one party perceives that its interests are being opposed or negatively affected by another party.” Functional (Constructive) conflict serves the organization’s interests while dysfunctional conflict threatens the organization’s interests. Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran.

Brown’s Conflict Continuum Positive Appropriate Conflict Neutral Outcomes Too Much Conflict Too Little Conflict Negative Moderate Low Highe Intensity Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran.

Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran. Traditional Transitions in Conflict Thought Human Relations The traditional view of conflict has argued that it must be avoided because it indicates a malfunction in the group. Conflict was viewed negatively as being synonymous with violence, destruction, and irrationality. The view that all conflict is bad is simplistic. To improve group or organizational performance, all we need to do is address the causes of conflict and correct them. Although strong evidence disputes this view, many use it to evaluate conflict. The human relations view argues that conflict is a natural, inevitable outcome in any group. Since conflict is inevitable, it should be accepted. And there are even times when conflict may benefit the performance of a group. This view dominated conflict theory from the late 1940s through the mid-1970s. The current approach is the interactionist view. It encourages conflict on the grounds that a harmonious, peaceful, tranquil, cooperative group is likely to become static and apathetic--unable to respond to the challenges of the global marketplace. The major contribution of this approach is to urge group leaders to maintain an ongoing minimal level of conflict--enough to keep the group alive, self-critical, and creative. Interactionist Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran.

Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran. The Conflict Process Perceived Conflict Felt Manifest Conflict Sources of Conflict Conflict Outcomes Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran.

A Conflict Model (Figure 10-8) Aftermath of Preceding Episode Latent Conflict Felt Conflict Perceived Conflict Environmental Effects Strategic Considerations Manifest Conflict Attention- Focus and Diversion Mechanisms Organizational and Extra- Tensions Conflict Resolution Conflict Aftermath Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran.

Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran. A Conflict Model Latent Conflict. Latent conflict is essentially conflict waiting to happen. Felt Conflict. Felt conflict is experienced as discomfort and tension. Perceived Conflict. Perceived conflict is the awareness that we are in a conflict situation. Manifest Conflict. After conflict is perceived and felt, it may or may not become open, or manifest. Conflict Aftermath. Conflict is likely to breed more conflict and, when it does, that conflict is likely to take on a life of its own. Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran.

Desired Outcomes of Conflict Agreement: Strive for equitable and fair agreements that last. Stronger relationships: Build bridges of goodwill and trust for the future. Learning: Greater self-awareness and creative problem solving. Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran.

Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran. Types of Conflict Line – Staff Conflict Intrapersonal Conflict Approach-Approach Approach - Avoidance Avoidance – Avoidance Interpersonal Conflict Intergroup Conflict Cross – Cultural Conflict Task Conflict Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran.

Antecedents of Conflict Incompatible personalities or value systems. Overlapping or unclear job boundaries. Competition for limited resources. Interdepartment /intergroup competition. Inadequate communication. Interdependent tasks. Organizational complexity. Unreasonable or unclear policies, standards, or rules. Unreasonable deadlines or extreme time pressure. Collective decision making. Decision making by consensus. Unmet expectations. Unresolved or suppressed conflict. Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran.

Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran. Sources of Conflict Goal Incompatibility Goals conflict with goals of others Different Values and Beliefs Different beliefs due to unique background, experience, training Caused by specialized tasks, careers Explains misunderstanding in cross-cultural and merger relations Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran.

Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran. Sources of Conflict Goal Incompatibility Three levels of interdependence Resource A B C Pooled Different Values and Beliefs Task Interdependence A B C Sequential A B C Reciprocal Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran.

Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran. Sources of Conflict Goal Incompatibility Different Values and Beliefs Task Interdependence Scarce Resources Increases competition for resources to fulfill goals Ambiguity Lack of rules guiding relations Encourages political tactics Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran.

Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran. Sources of Conflict Goal Incompatibility Different Values and Beliefs Task Interdependence Lack of opportunity --reliance on stereotypes Lack of ability -- arrogant communication heightens conflict perception Lack of motivation -- conflict causes lower motivation to communicate, increases stereotyping Scarce Resources Ambiguity Communication Problems Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran.

Conflict Management Styles: Orientations Win-win orientation You believe parties will find a mutually beneficial solution to their disagreement Win-lose orientation You believe that the more one party receives, the less the other receives Tends to escalate conflict, use of power/politics Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran.

Tips for Managers Whose Employees Are Having a Personality Conflict Follow company policies for diversity, anti-discrimination, and sexual harassment. Investigate and document conflict. If appropriate, take corrective action (e.g., feedback or B Mod). If necessary, attempt informal dispute resolution. Refer difficult conflicts to human resource specialists or hired counselors for formal resolution attempts and other interventions. Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran.

Minimizing Inter-group Conflict: An Updated Contact Model Level of perceived Inter-group conflict tends to increase when: Recommended actions: Work to eliminate specific negative interactions between groups (and members). Conduct team building to reduce intragroup conflict and prepare employees for cross-functional teamwork. Encourage personal friendships and good working relationships across groups and departments. Foster positive attitudes toward members of other groups (empathy, compassion, sympathy). Avoid or neutralize negative gossip across groups or departments. Conflict within the group is high There are negative interactions between groups (or between members of those groups) Influential third-party gossip about other group is negative Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran.

Skills and Best Practices: How to Build Cross-Cultural Relationships Behavior Rank Be a good listener 1 Be sensitive to the needs of others 2 Be cooperative, rather than overly competitive 2 Advocate inclusive (participative) leadership 3 Compromise rather than dominate 4 Build rapport through conversations 5 Be compassionate and understanding 6 Avoid conflict by emphasizing harmony 7 Nurture others (develop and mentor) 8 Tie Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran.

Stimulating Functional Conflict Devil,s Advocacy Dialectic Method Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran.

Conflict Management Styles Integrating Obliging High Compromising Concern for Others Dominating Avoiding Low High Low Concern for Self Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran.

Conflict Management Styles Competing. Involves trying to win at the other party’s expense. Generally leads to antagonism and festering resentment. Avoiding. Attempts to avoid or smooth over conflict situations. Generally unproductive. Accommodating. Involves acceding completely to the other party’s wishes or at least cooperating with little or no attention to one’s own interests. Compromising. Involves an attempt to find a satisfactory middle ground (“split the difference”) Collaborating. This problem-solving style is mutually beneficial. Requires trust, open sharing of information, and creativity. Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran.

Fitting Conflict Style to the Situation Appropriate Situation Competing Time is short and we're sure we're correct. The other party would take advantage of a collaborative approach. Avoiding The conflict is trivial. We need a temporary, cooling-off tactic. Accommodating The other party has great power. The issue isn't important to us. Compromising There is little chance of agreement, both parties have equal power, and there are time constraints. Collaborating This is the "ideal" style to be sought unless the parties to conflict have perfectly opposing interests. Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran.

View of Ethics in Conflict Management Utilitarian Golden Rule Kantian/ Rights Enlightened Self Interest Justice Approach Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran.

Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran. Conflict Premises Conflict and disagreement are normal in human relationships. Conflict may be good. The way in which conflict is framed may influence its nature and outcomes. Relationship/task Emotional/intellectual Cooperate/win A mutually acceptable solution can often be found. Any of the parties to conflict can contribute to its resolution by taking personal responsibility and initiating communications. Trusting behavior can evoke trusting behavior. Consensus and synergy are likely only when people choose to cooperate in a win-win relationship rather than compete. Some conflicts may never be resolved because of fear, rigidity, intolerance, paranoia, or other emotional impairment. Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran.

Approaches to Conflict Resolution Reduced Conflict Improve Communications Clarify Job Responsibilities Develop Employees’ Negotiating Skills Use Third Parties as Mediators Separate Conflicting Parties Bring Parties Together to Foster Understanding and Cooperation Focus on Larger Goals Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran.

Communication Guidelines to Build More Productive Relationships Be honest; say what’s on your mind now. Be open. Be specific; provide examples. Don’t use the words never and always. Listen in depth; reflect and paraphrase what you hear. Ask questions to clarify the meaning of what the other person is saying. Focus on behavior that the other person controls. Maintain good eye contact. Focus on only one specific issue or behavior at a time. Don’t interrupt. Stay there. Don’t walk away mentally, emotionally, physically, or psychologically. Be direct and tactful. Use I statements rather than you statements (e.g., “When this happens, I feel …” rather than “When you do this, it makes me feel …”). Don’t attack the other person by ridiculing, taunting, or otherwise being rude and hostile. Don’t defend yourself by blaming others, avoiding, or withdrawing. Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran.

Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran. Negotiating Negotiation: “A give-and-take decision-making process involving interdependent parties with different preferences.” Distributive negotiation: Single issue; fixed-pie; win-lose. Integrative negotiation: More than one issue; win-win. Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran.

The Two Types of Bargaining Strategies Characteristics Distributive Bargaining Integrative Bargaining Available Resources Primary Motivations Primary Interests Focus of Relationships Fixed Amount I Win, You Lose Opposed Short-Term Variable Amount I Win, You Win Congruent Long-Term Two negotiation methods are distributive bargaining and integrative bargaining. When negotiating the price of a used car, the buyer and seller are engaged in distributive bargaining. This type of bargaining is a zero-sum game: any gain that one party makes comes at the expense of the other party. So, the essence is negotiating over who gets what share of a fixed pie. The next technique assumes that more than one “win-win” settlement exists. Generally preferable to distributive bargaining, integrative bargaining builds long-term relationships because each negotiator can leave the table feeling victorious. For integrative bargaining to succeed, negotiators must be open, candid, sensitive, trusting, and flexible. All things being equal, integrative bargaining is preferable to distributive bargaining. The former builds long-term relationships and facilitates future cooperation. The latter, on the other hand, leaves one party a loser; so it can build animosities and deepen divisions when people have to work together on an ongoing basis. Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran.

An Integrative Approach: Added-Value Negotiation Clarify interests. Identify options. Design alternative deal packages. Select a deal. Perfect the deal. Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran.

Situational Influences on Negotiation Location Physical Setting Time Investment and Deadlines Audience . Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran.

Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran. Bargaining Zone Model Your Positions Initial Target Resistance Area of Potential Agreement Resistance Target Initial Opponent’s Positions Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran.

Decision-Making Biases That Impede Negotiations Escalation of commitment The mythical fixed pie Anchoring and adjustments Framing negotiations Availability of information The winner’s curse Overconfidence Irrational escalation of commitment occurs when people continue a previously selected course of action beyond what rational analysis would recommend. Such misdirected persistence can waste a great deal of time, energy, and cash. The mythical fixed pie. Bargainers assume that their gain must come at the expense of the other party. By assuming a “zero-sum game” they exclude any opportunities for finding “win-win” solutions. Anchoring and adjustments. People often anchor their judgments on irrelevant information, such as initial offers. Effective negotiators do not let an initial anchor minimize the amount of information and depth of analysis they use to evaluate a situation. Framing negotiations. People are affected by the way information is presented to them. Availability of information. Negotiators often rely too much on information that is readily available while ignoring more relevant data. They should learn to distinguish between what is familiar and what is reliable and relevant. The winner’s curse is the regret one feels after negotiation. Since your offer was accepted by your opponent, you become concerned that you offered too much. You can reduce the “curse” by getting as much information as possible and putting yourself in your opponent’s shoes. Overconfidence. When people hold certain beliefs and expectations, they tend to ignore any information that contradicts them. The result is that negotiators tend to be overconfident, which can lessen the incentive to compromise. Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran.

Effective Negotiator Behaviours Plan and Set Goals Gather Information Communicate Effectively Make Appropriate Concessions .. Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran.

Improving Negotiation Skills Research your opponent Begin with a positive overture Address problems, not personalities Pay little attention to initial offers Emphasize win-win solutions Create an open, trusting climate The following recommendations should help to improve your effectiveness as a negotiator: 1. Research your opponent to acquire as much information as you can about his or her interests and goals. Such knowledge will help you to understand behavior, predict responses to offers, and frame solutions. 2. Begin with a positive overture because research shows that concessions tend to be reciprocated. 3. Address the problem, not personalities. Avoid the tendency to attack your opponent. Separate people from problems; don’t personalize differences. 4. Pay little attention to initial offers. Because everyone has an initial position which tends to be extreme and idealistic, treat initial offers as points of departure. 5. Emphasize “win-win” solutions. Look for an integrative solution. Frame options in terms of your opponent’s interests and look for solutions that will allow both of you to declare victory. 6. Create an open, trusting climate. Ask questions, listen actively, and avoid defensiveness or inappropriate wording. Doing so will help to create a climate that is conducive to an integrative settlement. Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran.

Third – Party Negotiations Mediator Arbitrator Conciliator Consultant Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Techniques Facilitation: Third party gets disputants to deal directly and constructively with each other. Conciliation: Neutral third party acts as communication link between disputants. Peer review: Impartial co-workers hear both sides and render decision that may or may not be binding. Ombudsman: Respected and trusted member of the organization hears grievances confidentially. Mediation: Trained third-party guides disputants toward their own solution. Arbitration: Neutral third-party hears both sides in a court-like setting and renders a binding decision. Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran.

Unethical Negotiating Tactics Lies Puffery Deception Weakening The Opponent Strengthening One’s Own Position Information Exploitation Nondisclosure Change of Mind Distraction Maximization Gholipour A. 2006. Organizational Behavior. University of Tehran.