MGT 3513 Exam 1, Chandler LSU, Spring 2023

Types of Workplace Conflict

Goal

Affective

Cognitive

Goal Conflict

occurs when people have incompatible goals or interests; any workplace issue; price, equity, effort, or power (voice); main negotiation conflict or main focus

Affective Conflict

occurs when people have incompatible feelings or emotions

Cognitive Conflict

occurs when people have incompatible ideas, beliefs, or thoughts; can be referred to as consensus conflict

Levels of Workplace Conflict

Interpersonal

Intrapersonal

Intergroup

Intragroup

Organizational -- horizontal, vertical, role

Interpersonal Workplace Conflict

conflict that occurs between 1 or more individuals regarding their personal goals or interests (focus of course)

Intrapersonal Workplace Conflict

internal conflict/debates

Intergroup Workplace Conflict

conflict that occurs between different groups or teams over group or team goals

Intragroup Workplace Conflict

internal conflict within a group or team; relevant when negotiations are between groups or teams because it must be resolved first

Organizational Workplace Conflict

horizontal (occurs at same level)

vertical (occurs at different levels, power difference)

role (conflict about tasks); conflict that is defined by the organizational context

Role Conflict

intrasender - conflict that occurs because you get conflicting messages from a role sender (boss/supervisor)

intersender - occurs when you get conflicting messages from multiple role senders (multiple bosses)

When does conflict become a dispute?

when one party makes a claim on another party that is rejected

Latent conflict

conflict happens/occurs below the surface, conflict that is not expressed or verbalized

dispute resolution

when people with opposing goals try to come to a single outcome

Types of workplace disputes

Price

Equity

Effort

Power-voice

Elements of a dispute

Interests

Rights

Power

Interests

Focuses on needs, desires and concerns that underlie people's positions in negotiations; difficult because it understands a deeper understanding on the other party as well as your own

Rights

relies on independent standard that has perceived legitimacy and fairness; can be formal (laws, handbook) and informal (reciprocity, precedent, fairness, equity, seniority)

Power

based on relative power of parties involved; defined as the ability to coerce someone to do something they would not normally do; involves threats or actual acts of power/power contests

Types of withdrawl

Lumping it -- dropping your claim/giving into the other party's claim because pursuing dispute isn't your best interest

avoidance -- one or more parties can withdraw from relationship, such as divorce, leaving the neighborhood, etc.

Dispute Resolution Process of Interest, rights and power

Look at chart in notes

Integrated Dispute Resolution System

Power

Rights

Interests

Not ideal, in upside down pyramid shape

Best = interests resolutions; average = rights resolutions; worst = power resolutions

independent, dependent and interdependent

independent: meet needs without assistance of others

dependent: must rely on others for what they need

interdependent: interlock goals with the other party

zero-sum

only one winner

non-zero-sum

Games in which outcomes need not sum to zero. With cooperation, both can win; with competition, both can lose (also called integrative situations).

BATNA

Best Alternative for The Negotiated Agreement

Describe a personal conflict

Parties

Issues

Interests

Goals

Resistance point

BATNA - best alternative to negotiated agreement

Strategy and tactics

Outcome

Satisfaction

concession

when one party agrees to make a change on their position

dilemma of trust

how much should negotiators believe what the other party tells them

differences between negotiators

interests

judgment about the future

risk tolerance

time preference

elements that contribute to conflict's destructive image

competitive win-lost goals

misperception and bias

emotionality

decreased communication

blurred issues

rigid commitments

magnified differences, minimized similarities

escalation of the conflict

dual concerns model

A model the postulates that people in conflict have two independent types of concern: concern about their own outcomes and concern about the other's outcomes

negotiation

A process involving two or more parties in which each decides what they will give and receive in an exchange between them

negotiation myths

All negotiations are zero-sum, aka win-lose situations only or the mythical fixed pie

Decide to be tough and unyielding OR soft and accommodating

Good negotiators are born

Experience is the best teacher

Good negotiators always take risks and they are highly rewarded

Good negotiators rely on intuition and feeling; wing it

negotiating rationally

Means making the best decisions that you can in order to optimize outcomes

Many things you CANNOT control, but you can control your own decisions

mythical fixed pie

The belief that negotiations are always zero-sum

Fail to recognize opportunities for joint gain, always competitive

3 focuses in negotiation

what you want

what do they want

what factors influence what will happen in this negotiation or context

gathering and assessing info for negotiations

assess type and level of conflict

assess what happens if agreement is not reached (BATNA)

identify issues in negotiation

assess importance in each issue

assess underlying interests

determine goals

conduct a self inventory

assess what happens if agreement is not reached

BATNA

has to be real and something you can do on your own

identify issues in negotiation

Things that will actually BE negotiated, items for which you are trying to get agreement and help satisfy goals

More issues to negotiate = better; can have more opportunity or room for alternatives

Do not load negotiations with trivial matters; could gain in little areas but lose in the big areas

assess importance in each issue

Decide their importance; rank issues

Trade off lower value issues to gain on higher value issues

assess underlying interests

The "why" question; why do I care about these issues? Why are some issues more important to me?

Stay focused on big goals

Note: Collab bargaining = interest based negotiating; interest based dispute resolution = mediation

determine goals

Bargaining range has three points -- Starting point = initial point; best outcome, likely a bit unrealistic ; Target point = desired point, best outcome you can realistically hope to achieve ; Resistance point = worst outcome you are willing to accept before you turn to your BATNA; always set by BATNA

ZOPA

zone of potential agreement; place where bargaining ranges overlap; area between resistance points; positive bargaining zone

Best settlement you can hope for = at your opponents resistance point

Bargaining surplus - when negotiation offers value to both parties that the BATNA cannot capture or that are better than their BATNA

conduct a self inventory

Resources -- Data

Recurrence of Negotiations

History -- What worked, what didn't; What can I expect from the other person

Trust -- Have they been honest, Have they fulfilled their end of bargains, Key for collaborative bargaining

Authority and Constituents -- What authority do I have to enter agreements, Will I take positions I am not allowed to take or make, What constituents do I have, should I factor in anyone else's interests

Other Misc -- Should I prepare an agenda? What order should items be in? Who is invited? How will I track all discussions? What location? Housekeeping issues/items

selecting a negotiation strategy

negotiating a style assessment

selecting the best strategy

Bases for Determining Default Negotiating Style

social dimension

emotional dimension

cognitive dimension

social dimension

examines the way people respond to others in conflict situations

Engagers - people who jump right into a conflict situation

Avoiders - people who are more introverted, independent, and self-reliant

emotional dimension

refers to how people feel about the way they are treated in a negotiation or conflict situation

Givers - tend to be generous, cooperative, or reconciliatory

Takers - tend to be more competitive, assertive, and quick to defend their interests, often fearful of being taken advantage of; can lead to more authoritarian approaches

cognitive dimension

refers to how people think about conflict situations

Acceptors - tend to take the conflict as it's presented to them, people who think within the lines, focus on the details of the rules that apply to the situation

Redefiners - people who think outside the box, think about how they can recast the problem, look for creative solutions

5 main negotiating styles`

competitive

collaborative

compromise

accommodation

withdraw/avoidance

3 illegit negotiating styles

con

borrow

rob

competitive negotiating style

mythical fixed pies, all negotiations are zero-sum, goal is to win, capture the bargaining surplus

collaborative negotiating style

do well but recognize the need of the other party to do well; view the problem as wanting to be solved; goal is to find mutual gains; build trust, share more information, do not view other party as opponent; enlarge the pie for everyone, increase value for all

compromise negotiating style

split the difference approach; competitive in that it is viewed as a fixed pie but you want a quick solution and not the whole pie; not an optimizing strategy; usually turned to from another strategy

accomodation negotiating style

plan to give in to the other side; happens when you care more about the relationship than about the outcomes; other party gets all the bargaining surplus

withdraw/avoidance negotiating style

approach that does not involve negotiating; no one gets the bargaining surplus

con negotiation style

special cases of competitive bargaining; involves an attempt to take advantage of the other party through the deception or creation of misplaced trust, present false data or false claims; need a good understanding of the vulnerabilities of the other side and going after them

borrow negotiation style

special cases of competitive bargaining; occurs when a person demands concessions now in exchange for promised future concessions; leads to ethical issues when needing to fulfill the promised future concessions (if they don't)

rob negotiation style

special cases of competitive bargaining; occurs when a party uses power in negotiations to take advantage of another person in a way that that person or some objective observer would consider unjust

selecting the best strategy for negotiating

Relationship Concerns

Low outcome, low relationship concerns = avoid or withdraw

High outcome, high relationship concerns = collaborate

High relationship, low outcome concerns = accommodate

Outcome Concerns -- Companies focus on outcome

High outcome, low relationship concerns = competitive

Medium outcome, medium relationship concerns = compromise

decision perspectives for negotiators

individual

interactive

joint

individual decision perspectives for negotiators

Starting point: assessing what you want from the negotiation, aka the "gathering and assessing information" steps

Can identify alternatives and pay off, but is very incomplete

Simplifies the process by not thinking about the other party but puts you at a disadvantage

Necessary but not sufficient condition for negotiation

interactive decision perspectives for negotiators

Requires that a negotiator considers alternatives, interests, goals, and behaviors of the other side; aka the "gathering and assessing information" steps but now for the other side

Recognizes the interdependence of negotiated outcomes; result is from an interactive process

Prepared to make a competitive negotiation; not enough for collaborative negotiation

joint decision perspectives for negotiators

Emphasizes opportunities for cooperation between the two parties

Assess if there are opportunities or advantage to working together to achieve jointly beneficial outcomes or gains

Essential to collaborative negotiation

Problems Associated with Information Collection and Use

Failure to see the other party's side in a negotiation

info availability

Failure to see the other party's side in a negotiation

Failure to move from individual to interactive perspective

Causes The Winner's Curse

the winners curse

occurs when negotiators fail to consider their opponent's decisions and behaviors during negotiations

information availability

Over rely or overuse information that's easily available

Ease of retrievability - fresh in memory, maybe recent occurrence, how vivid memories are of information presented

use information because it's strategically relevant not just easy to get

Established search patterns - look for information from the same sources over and over again; rely on the same data and people; do not broaden search for information

always question information you have and why you use it (strategy or ease of use?)

escalation of commitment

Occurs when negotiator irrationally stays committed to an initial course of action even if it's not leading to the desired outcome; double down on bad decisions

Psychological factors leading to

Biases in perception and judgment - choose a course of action and stake out a position, perception is bias toward info that supports the position (confirmation bias); judgments/decisions reinforce wisdom of prior decision

Impression management - to change course is to admit that they made a mistake

Competitive irrationality - get caught up in competitive spirals that do not make sense

how to avoid escalation of commitment

Look at decisions you make in light of the expected outcomes

how can a negotiator be overconfident

Overconfident about their ability to win a negotiation and where the settlement is likely to be

problems of negotiator overconfidence

Better negotiator - less likely to make concessions, increases likelihood of impasse

Know where the settlement will be - don't want to hear other ideas, underuse collaborative negotiations

overconfidence an need-based illusions

Illusion of superiority - think you are more intelligent, persuasive, capable; unrealistic positive view of yourself

Illusion of optimism - underestimate the likelihood that they'll experience bad future events; overestimate likelihood that they'll experience good future events

Illusion of control - tend to believe they have more control over future events than they really do; don't move to interactive perspectives, like the individual perspective

rules of fair behavior

equity

equality

needs

why are rules of fair behavior important

It can be the difference between getting a settlement or not and how people feel

negative emotions

being consistent with the ranting negotiator, believe going in and displaying anger/frustration is beneficial to them

Not totally ineffective in competitive bargaining

postitive emotions

person who thinks you're better off generating positive feelings with the other party and display happiness / friendliness / sympathy, etc

Most effective

Collaborative

Generates more persistence in the negotiator

rational emotions

emotionless negotiator; person who believes that in negotiations, it's better to not show any emotion and have a poker face

Losing out on advantage of positive negotiation

causes of anger in negotiation

occurs when a negotiator believes that the negative outcomes they have been experiencing are due to the actions of others. They believe those actions were intentional and not accidental and therefore they felt controlled

intrapersonal effects of anger in negotiations

Effects the negotiator's cognitive process; really angry people think less clearly and are overcome by emotions, make errors and acn even forget what they want to negotiate because they are so mad

Even if they get good outcomes, they are less internally satisfied

interpersonal effects of anger in negotiations

Causes reciprocal anger; get what you give in negotiations

In extreme cases can cause negotiations to break down

Reputational effects are important to remember; people don't like dealing with angry people