1. Managing Conflict & Negotiation
Chapter 13
Managing Conflict & Negotiation

2. Conflict
Process by which one perceives that there interests are being opposed or negatively affected by another party
Can be real or imagined
Metaphors and mindsets
War
Part of good decision-making

3. The Relationship between Conflict Intensity and Outcomes
Positive
Outcomes
Neutral
Experts once believed that all conflict threatened managerial authority and thus had to be squelched. Then the human relationists came along and recognized the inevitability of conflict and advised managers to learn to live with it.
Currently, experts believe that conflict can have both positive and negative outcomes and that organizations can suffer from having too little or too much conflict. You will note from this graph that some level of conflict is good for organizations, but too little or too much detracts from achieving organizational objectives.
If there is too little conflict, companies become apathetic, continue doing what they’re doing, and resist change. Too much conflict can cause dissatisfaction, hostility, and a lack of teamwork.
Too little conflict
Appropriate conflict
Too much conflict
Negative
Low
Moderate Intensity
High
13-3

4. Functional vs. Dysfunctional Conflict
Functional Conflict serves organization’s interests
Typically issue-focused
Stimulates creativity
Dysfunctional Conflict threatens organization’s interests
Typically person-focused
Breeds hostility
Stifles communication
Whether conflict is functional or dysfunctional is usually determined by the outcome of the conflict.
Functional conflict stimulates creative resolution of problems, prevents complacency, and results in positive outcomes that can enhance performance. For example, if the quality of one part of a production operation is declining, it can cause conflict between that department and the next stage of the production process. If they work together to correct the problem, the overall quality of the final product will improve. If they don’t, they will both suffer.
13-4

5. Desired Conflict Outcomes
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
Listed here are three desired outcomes of conflict.
Agreement is desired because unresolved conflicts typically come back as problems in the future. Therefore, it is best to handle conflicts positively so that a mutually acceptable agreement can be made.
Stronger Relationships are desired because conflict that is resolved positively is more likely to lead to future interaction and information sharing between parties.
Learning results from positively resolved conflict that helps shape our behavior and helps us grow as individuals.
13-5

6. Workplace Incivility Lack of respect for others
Creates cycles of retribution
Related to:
Lower productivity, time on the job, effort, job satisfaction & performance

7. Intergroup Conflict The role of cohesiveness
See themselves as unique and others as homogenous
See themselves as moral and others immoral
Exaggerate differences between in-group and out-group
Contact Hypothesis

8. Managing Conflict
Devil’s advocacy
Dialectical method

9. Five Conflict-Handling Styles
Integrating
Obliging
Let’s discuss different ways of handling conflict. Researchers have categorized conflict styles based on two dimensions: concern for others and concern for self. Put another way, we can discuss each of these styles in terms of who loses and who wins.
The dominating style can be described as the “I win, you lose” perspective. Those with this style are characterized as being assertive and uncooperative and striving to have their own needs met at the other’s expense. This style is good if the aggressor is right and has a better solution than a group would come up with. It’s bad when it results in poorer human relations and causes resentment among others.
The obliging/accommodating style is the “I lose, you win” perspective. This style is characterized as being unassertive and cooperative, neglecting self to satisfy others; believing that being accepted by others is more important than achieving personal goals; not wanting to cause trouble, and being self-sacrificing and generous. This style is good when relationships are maintained, but it may be counterproductive if the accommodator has a better idea or solution. This style works best when the relationship is the most important consideration, the issue is important to the other party but not to you, and time is limited. If this approach is used repeatedly, it may breed contempt on the part of the accommodators and they may get taken advantage of.
The avoiding style is the “I lose and you lose” perspective. This style is characterized by being uncooperative and unassertive, not being concerned with self or others, not addressing the conflict, withdrawing, side stepping, and postponing. This style is good when it maintains a relationship that would be hurt if the issue were resolved. However, the issue doesn’t get resolved; and if this is used too often, the problem will get worse because the problem is unlikely to go away on its own.
The integrating/collaborating style is the “you win, I win” perspective. This style is characterized by being assertive and cooperative, satisfying both parties’ concerns, finding underlying issues, reaching creative solutions, and colluding. This problem-solving style tries to find the solution that will meet everyone’s needs. Those with this style are willing to change to meet a mutually beneficial solution that is based on open and honest communication. This style is good because it seeks optimal solutions; however, it can take time, patience, and lots of discussion to get to it. This is the best approach when maintaining relationships is important, time is available, group goals are valued more than personal goals, and when an important issue is involved where finding the best solution is critical.
The compromising style is the “I win some, you win some” perspective. This style is characterized by using intermediate assertiveness and cooperativeness and achieving a mutually acceptable solution that partially satisfies both by splitting the difference and exchanging concessions. This style is useful because it can usually be accomplished quickly while maintaining relationships. The down side is that the results may be sub-optimal and can lead to playing games such as asking for twice as much initially so that the compromise will be closer to what they wanted to begin with.
Research has shown that managers that exhibit flexibility by using a variety of strategies are more successful at managing conflict than those who rely mainly on their preferred style.
High
Compromising
Concern for Others
Dominating
Avoiding
Low
High
Low
Concern for Self
13-9

10. Third-Party Interventions
Conflict triangle
Political coalitions
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Facilitation
Conciliation
Peer review
Ombudsman
Mediation
Arbitration

11. Negotiation Distributive Negotiation Integrative Negotiation
“fixed pie”, “win-lose”
Integrative Negotiation
Possibility of an agreement that is better for both parties