MGMT 340 FINAL

A Definition of Conflict

A Definition of Conflict

A process that begins when one party perceives that another party has negatively affected, or is about to negatively affect, something that the first party cares about

Commonalties in the definitions are

opposition or incompatibility and some form of interaction.

The Traditional View of Conflict

Assumed all was BAD and TO BE AVOIDED. Viewed negatively and discussed with such terms violence, destruction, and irrationality

The interactionist view of conflict:

Without conflict: A harmonious, peaceful, tranquil, and cooperative group is prone to becoming static, apathetic, and unresponsive to needs for change and innovation.

Functional, constructive forms of conflict

support goals

Conflicts that hinder group performance are

dysfunctional or destructive forms of conflict.

Task conflict

relates to the content and goals of the work.

Relationship conflict

focuses on interpersonal relationships

Process conflict

relates to how the work gets done

Task conflicts relate positively to creativity and
innovation,

but are not related to routine task performance.

Task conflict is related to positive outcomes WHEN

members share goals and have high levels of trust.

Relationship Conflict

There are some very specific cases in which conflict can be beneficial, but Relationship conflicts are not productive and produce stress.

Task conflicts sometimes escalate

into relationship conflicts

Researchers have started to focus more on
managing the whole context in

which conflicts occur, both before and after the behavioral stage of conflict occurs. Manage the conflict process. Select appropriate conflict management style

Uncooperative

avoiding, competing

cooperative

collaborating, accommodating

Problem Solving

Face-to-face meeting of the conflicting parties for the purpose of identifying the problem and resolving it through open discussion.

Superordinate goals

Creating a shared goal that cannot be attained without the cooperation of each of the conflicting parties.

Expansion of resources

When a conflict is caused by the scarcity of a resource (for example, money, promotion, opportunities, office space), expansion of the resource can create a win-win solution

Avoidance

Withdrawal from or suppression of the conflict.

Smoothing

Playing down differences while emphasizing common interests between the conflicting parties.

Compromise

Each party to the conflict gives up something of value.

Authoritative command

Management uses its formal authority to resolve the conflict and then communicates its desires to the parties involved.

Altering the human variable

Using behavioral change techniques such as human relations training to alter attitudes and behaviors that cause conflict.

Altering the structural variables

Changing the formal organization structure and the interaction patterns of conflicting parties through job redesign, transfers, creation of coordinating positions, and the like.

Communication

Using ambiguous or threatening messages to increase conflict levels.

Bringing in outsiders

Adding employees to a group whose backgrounds, values, attitudes, or managerial styles differ from those of present members.

Restructuring the organization

Realigning work groups, altering rules and regulations, increasing interdependence, and making similar structural changes to disrupt the status quo.

Appointing a devil’s advocate

Designating a critic to purposely argue against the majority positions held by the group.

Types of Interventions

-Facilitation by the leader
-Alternative dispute resolution
-Ombudsmen
-Peer review
-Mediation
-Arbitration

negotiation

process in which two or more parties exchange goods or services and attempt to agree upon the exchange rate for them

negotiation and bargaining

can be used interchangeably

goal

distributive: get as much as possible integrative: expand it so both parties are satisfied

motivation

distributive: win-lose integrative: win-win

focus

distributive: positions (i can’t go beyond this point on this issue) integrative: can you explain why this issue is so important to you

Interests

distributive: opposed integrative: congruent

information sharing

distributive: low (sharing information will only allow other party to take advantage) integrative: high (sharing information will allow each party to find ways to satisfy interests of each party)

duration of relationship

distributive: short term integrative: long term

BATNA

best alternative to negotiation agreement -
what the party will get (give up) if negotiation reach an impasse

Reservation price/ Resistance point

the most the party is willing to give or the least it is willing to take in an agreement.

target point

what the party wants to achieve

first offers

anchoring bias

bargaining zone (=settlement range)

Range between one party’s minimum
reservation point and the other party’s
maximum reservation point.

A range of settlements that are better for both parties

than what they would achieve if an impasse occurred.

distributive negotiation

When engaged in distributive bargaining, research
consistently shows one of the best things you can
do is make the first offer, and make it an
aggressive one. Another distributive bargaining tactic is revealing a deadline.

integrative negotiation

Allows a broader range of alternative solutions to
be considered. A win-win solution is possible. Explore all possible common interests!

In contrast to distributive bargaining, integrative
bargaining

assumes one or more of the possible settlements can create a win–win solution.

Five steps of the negotiation process are

1. preparation and planning

2. definition of ground rules

3. clarification and justification

4. bargaining and problem solving

5. closure and implementation

“Fixed Pie” myth

the pie can be expanded

escalating commitment

Taking a stand forces sticking to it. Self-discipline is needed.

overconfidence

Always try to understand the merits of the other party’s position as well

Too much telling and not enough active listening

Seek to be understood, but also, to understand

In distributive negotiations, negotiators in a
position of power or equal status who show

anger negotiate better outcomes because their anger induces concessions from their opponents. Anxiety also appears to have an impact on negotiation.

Managers with high levels of economic power from Hong Kong, which is a high power-distance country, were more cooperative

in negotiations over a shared resource than German and U.S. managers, who were lower in power distance. This suggests that in high-power distance countries, those in positions of power might exercise more restraint.

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, arbitrator, conciliator, consultant