1. 13 Conflict Group members do not always get along well with one another. Even in serene circumstances, the group’s atmosphere may shift so that once close collaborators become adversaries. Because conflict is ubiquitous, it must be managed to minimize its negative effects. What is conflict? What are the sources of conflict in groups? Why does conflict escalate? How can group members manage their conflict? Is conflict an unavoidable evil or a necessary good?

2. Causes WinningSharingControllingWorkingLiking Escalation UncertaintyPerceptionSoft tacticsReciprocityIrritation Few Resolution Negotiation Understanding Cooperative tactics Forgiveness Composure Few Commitment Misperception Hard tactics Retaliation Anger Many

3. That man is an aggressive creature will hardly be disputed. With the exception of certain rodents, no other vertebrate habitually distroys members of his own species. A. Storr If you have learned how to disagree without being disagreeable, then you have discovered the secret of getting along -- whether it be business, family relations, or life itself. Bernard Meltzer  Some people are always itching for a fight.  Groups must experience conflict to develop fully.  The human species is, by nature, aggressive.  An all-male group will have higher levels of conflict than will an all-female group.  The best way to deal with conflict is to talk things over.

4. What is Conflict? Definition: Disagreement, discord and friction that occur when the actions or beliefs of one or more members of the group are unacceptable to and are resisted by one or more of the other group members

5. Conflict escalation Conflict Conflict resolution Routine interaction Disagreement Conflict de-escalation

6. The Roots of Conflict ProcessIssueDynamics WinningWho has won?Conflict and competition SharingWho gets what?Resource distribution ControllingWho is in charge?Power struggles WorkingWho decides?Task and process conflict Liking and Disliking Who do I like?Personal differences

7. Conflict and competition  Deutsch: Cooperation vs. competition  Mixed-motive conflict and the prisoner’s dilemma game (PDG) John Wins 25¢ John Loses 25¢ John Wins 50¢ John Loses 10¢ Steve Loses 25¢ Steve Wins 50¢ Steve Loses 10¢ Steve Wins 25¢ John’s Choice C C D D Steve’s Choice Winning

8. John Wins 25¢ John Loses 25¢ John Wins 50¢ John Loses 10¢ Steve Loses 25¢ Steve Wins 50¢ Steve Loses 10¢ Steve Wins 25¢ John’s Choice C C D D Steve’s Choice Prisoner’s Dilemma Game If John picks C, and Steve picks C If John picks D, and Steve picks C If John picks D, and Steve picks D If John picks C, and Steve picks D

9. Wall Street v. Community Game Opponent vs. PartnerIterated  cooperationReciprocity over iterationsAmount of moneySex differencesCooperative Classrooms Factors that influence PDG choices Some game shows, such as “friend or foe,” use the PDG

10. Social values orientation (SVO) Individualists Proself and concerned only with their own outcomes. They make decisions based on what they think they personally will achieve, without concern for others’ outcomes. Competitors Proself but not prosocial they maximize their own outcomes and minimize others’ outcomes. They view disagreements as win–lose situations and find satisfaction in forcing their ideas on others. Altruists Prosocial but not proself, so they are motivated to help others who are in need. They willingly sacrifice their own outcomes in the hopes of helping others achieve some gain. Cooperators Prosocial and proself, they strive to maximize their own outcomes and others’ outcomes as well. They value accommodative interpersonal strategies that generate win–win situations. Social Values Orientation

11. Social Dilemmas Groups, because they ask individuals to work, live, and play with others, can set the stage of conflict over resources, and how they will be shared Commons Dilemma (social traps): exploiting shared resources Public goods dilemmas: contributions to public goods (free- riding) Fairness dilemmas: distributive vs. procedural justice, distribution norms Responsibility dilemmas: egocentrism vs. sociocentrism Sharing

12. Conflict can, in many cases, be traced to status differentiation processes, as group members seek to:  Influence each other  Gain positions of authority within the group Controlling Morrill (1995) confirmed the image of companies as arenas for power struggles, when group members compete with each other for power, promotions, and prominence, often by using manipulative, illicit tactics Ambush: a covert action to inconvenience an adversary Blindsiding: an intentional and surprising public embarrassment of an executive Meltdown: a physical fight between executives”

13. Working: Task and Process Content Disagreements over issues that are relevant to the group’s recognized goals and procedures Task Conflict Disagreement over the methods the group should use to complete its basic tasks Process Conflict Interpersonal discord that occurs because members dislike each other Personal Conflict Rules of Order seek to miminize process conflicts Note: Process and personal conflict disrupt group performance, but task conflict sometimes helps the group members work together more effectively.

14. Liking and Disliking: Personal and Interpersonal Conflict Any factor that causes disaffection between group members (e.g., differences in attitudes, objectionable personal qualities) can increase personal conflict. Balance theory predicts that group members will respond negatively when they disagree with those they like or agree with those they dislike, but as Taylor’s work confirmed, conflict is greatest when group members both disagree with and dislike each other.

15. Causes Resolution Escalation Uncertainty Perception Soft tactics Reciprocity Irritation Few Commitment Misperception Hard tactics Retaliation Anger Many As conflicts escalate, group members’ doubts and uncertainties are replaced by a firm commitment to their position.

16. Misattribution and FAE Misunderstanding motivations Perception  Misperception During conflict people’s perception of the sitaution and the people in that situation tend to be so distorted that they inflame rather than smooth conflict

17. As conflict intensifies, people shift from easy- going influence methods to tougher strategies. Soft Tactics  Hard Tactics Pruitt and his colleagues demonstrated this tendency in their study of “persistent annoyance”.

18. Deutsch and Krauss studied how people react to competitive circumstances in their classic Trucking Game Experiment Soft Tactics  Hard Tactics

19. Reciprocity  Retaliation The Norm of Reciprocity suggests: Pay back favors with rewards, but if harmed: retaliate Person A inflicts -1 harm B pays back with -2 harm Person A pays back -2 harm B answers with -3 harm Person A inflicts -4 harm Overmatching leads to escalation

20. Irritation  Anger Irritated people often display the emotion anger, but the emotion can trigger all manner of negative interpersonal behaviors, including the rejection of concessions, the tendering of unworkable initial offers, and the use of contentious influence strategies. Flaming a computer-mediated communication that the recipient construes as hostile, aggressive, intimidating, insulting, offensive, or unfriendly. Anger is also often expressed during online interactions.

21. Few  Many Conflicts are initially localized, but as they escalate more group members are drawn into the fray as they lend their support to one or more of the involved parties. Group members frequently use coalitions to shift the balance of power in their favor. Coalitions are often viewed as contentious, heavy-handed influence tactics because individuals in the coalition work not only to ensure their own outcomes but also to worsen the outcomes of non-coalition members. Coalitions form with people and against other people.

22. Causes EscalationResolution NegotiationUnderstanding Cooperative tactics ForgivenessComposureFew UncertaintyPerceptionSoft tactics Reciprocity Irritation Few CertaintyMisperceptionHard tactics Retaliation Anger Many

23. Commitment → Negotiation (Getting to Yes) Types: soft, hard, and principled negotiators Commitment  Negotiation

24. Empathy– recognizing others thoughts and emotions – increases cooperativeness and reduces conflict. Misperception  Understanding The neural bases of empathy Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06027.x/full

25. Hard Tactics  Cooperative Tactics The Dual Concern Model of Conflict Styles

26. Other Conflict Resolution Mechanisms Retaliation  Forgiveness Tit-for-Tat is nice, provocable, clear, forgiving (and reciprocal) Many  Few: Mediation (3 rd party) inquisitorial, arbitration, moot Anger  Composure Count to ten Rethink that email

27. Does Conflict, When Resolved, Lead to Improved Group Functioning? Conflict is a natural consequence of joining a group Cooperation may promote group unity but more likely: conflict undermines the group De Dreu & Weingart find that any type of conflict (task, process, and relational) undermines group functioning, but in some cases (when it is not associated with personal conflict) task conflict may be a benefit.

28. UncertaintyPerceptionSoft tactics Reciprocity Irritation Few CertaintyMisperceptionHard tactics Retaliation Anger Many Causes WinningSharingControllingWorkingLiking EscalationResolution NegotiationUnderstanding Cooperative tactics ForgivenessComposureFew