BADM 3740 - Week 7

Conflict

The perception that another party has negatively affected, is negatively affecting, or will negatively affect something you care about.

Why Does Conflict Occur?

Miscommunication, differences in opinions or values, different goals, perceived scarcity of resources, and disagreements about expected behavior

Traditional View of Conflict

The belief that conflict is bad

Human Relations View of Conflict

The belief that conflict is natural and unavoidable in groups and can sometimes improve performance

Interactionist View of Conflict

The belief that some conflict is necessary to keep a group creative, self-critical, and responsive to change

Functional Conflict

Conflict that supports a group’s goals and improves its performance

Benefits of Functional Conflict

-Improves decisions, stimulates creativity and innovation

-Encourages curiosity and self-evaluation

-Prevents groupthink

Dysfunctional Conflict

Conflict that interferes with a group’s goals and reduces performance

Consequences of Dysfunctional Conflict

-Reduces communication, cohesiveness

-Creates dissatisfaction and infighting

Functional Versus Dysfunctional Conflict

-Functional conflict helps group accomplish its goals

-Dysfunctional conflict gets in the way of those goals

Thomas-Kilmann Model

A model of five conflict resolution styles based on a person’s level of assertiveness and cooperativeness

Assertiveness

How concerned you are about achieving your own desired outcome

Cooperativeness

How concerned you are about helping the other person achieve their desired outcome

Five Conflict Resolution Styles

Competing, avoiding, accommodating, compromising, and collaborating

Competing

A conflict style with high assertiveness and low cooperativeness; you push for your own desired outcome

When Might Competing Be Useful?

When an issue is vital, quick decision is needed, or someone might take advantage of you

Potential Result of Competing

Often win-lose; works in short term, but damages relationships over time

Avoiding

Conflict style with low assertiveness and low low cooperativeness

-You do not address the conflict or pursue either person’s concerns

When Might Avoiding Be Useful?

When there is little chance of satisfying your concerns, someone else can resolve the issue better, or people need time to cool down

Potential Result of Avoiding

Lose-lose

-Underlying issue remains unresolved

-Temporary pause can help people regain perspective

Accommodating

A conflict style with low assertiveness and high cooperativeness

-You give priority to other person’s concerns

When Might Accommodating Be Useful?

When the issue matters little to you but matters a lot to the other person, or when maintaining cooperation is important

Potential Result of Accommodating

Lose-win; preserves harmony and builds goodwill

-You gave up what you wanted

Compromising

A conflict style with moderate assertiveness and cooperativeness

-Each person gives up something to reach an agreement

When Might Compromising Be Useful?

-Limited time; outcome is not worth a prolonged disruption; or collaboration has NOT worked

Potential Result of Compromising

It can protect relationships and reach an agreement effectively

-Neither person gets everything they want

Collaborating

A conflict style with high assertiveness and high cooperativeness

-Both sides work together to find a solution that addresses their concerns

When Might Collaborating Be Useful?

-When issue is too important to compromise on

-The conflict concerns a task

-Both sides want to learn

Potential Result of Collaborating

-Win-win with shared information and commitment

-Takes considerable time

Compromising versus Collaborating

-Compromising involves each person giving something up

-Collaborating involves working together to find a solution that satisfies both sides’ important concerns

Negotiation

A process in which two or more interdependent parties discuss their different preferences and try to reach an agreement

Three Negotiation Strategies

Consensus, distributive bargaining, and disagreement

Consensus

Collective acceptance of a decision because no one expresses disagreement

Distributive Bargaining

A win-lose approach to negotiating over limited or specific resources

(Ex: When negotiating the price of a car, buyer wants a lower price while the seller wants a higher price)

Characteristics of Distributive Bargaining

Parties may see each other as adversaries, focus on winning, stick to fixed positions, and apply pressure

Integrative Bargaining

Win-win approach that uses problem-solving and mutual respect to find an outcome satisfying to both parties

(Ex. Two people choosing a honeymoon by discussing what each person values and finding a destination that meets both sets of needs)

Characteristics of Integrative Bargaining

Parties act as joint problem-solvers, share their interests, and look for solutions that benefit both sides

Position in a Negotiation

A stated demand or preferred outcome

Interest in Negotiation

The underlying need, reason, or motivation behind a position

Distributive Vs. Integrative Bargaining

-Distributive bargaining focuses on dividing limited resources

-Integrative bargaining focuses on understanding interests and finding mutual gains

Four Stages of Negotiation in Order

Preparing → Exchanging → Bargaining → Closing and Commitment

Preparation Stage

Each party identifies its goals, considers what the other side may offer, and evaluates alternatives to an agreement

BATNA

Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement; best available option if you do not reach an agreement

Strong BATNA

A desirable alternative that gives you a better option if negotiations fails (strong job offer from another company)

Weak BATNA

An unattractive or unavailable alternative (having no other job offers when you urgently need employment)

BATNA versus Walk-Away Point

-BATNA: What you can do if there’s no agreement (helps you decide walk away point

-Walk-Away Point: Least favorable deal you are willing to accept

Exchanging Information Stage

Both parties explain their positions, share information, ask questions, and identify the issues that matter to them

Why Should Negotiators Ask Questions When Exchanging Information?

Questions help uncover the other party’s underlying needs and interests, making integrative solutions more possible

Bargaining Stage

Both sides work toward acceptable outcomes, often making concessions or exchanging something to gain something else

Concession

Something a negotiator gives up or adjusts to help reach an agreement

Closing and Commitment Stage

The parties formalize their agreement or recognize that they did not reach one

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

A process for resolving conflict with the help of a trained, neutral third party

Mediation

A neutral third party helps the parties resolve their dispute but cannot dictate the solutions

Arbitration

A neutral third party determines a binding settlement to the dispute

Mediation vs. Arbitration

A mediator facilitates an agreement

An arbitrator decides the settlement

Perceived Power

Biases the approach taken in negotiation

Believe You Have More Power in Negotiation

Distributive approach; demand more, concede less, and behave more aggressively

Believe You Have Equal Power in Negotiation

Integrative approach; more likely to cooperate

Emotions

Leads to an altered approach in negotiation and bias in decision making process

Positive Emotions in Negotiation

Integrative approach; someone decides too quickly, excitement

Negative Emotions in Negotiation

-Stress, anxiety, and frustration

-Distributive approach; weakens judgement

Managing Emotions in Negotiations

-Recognize possible triggers

-Plan how to regain composure

-Use emotional intelligence

-Channel anxiety into excitement

Diversity

Differences in individual attributes that lead someone to perceive another as different from themselves

Homogenous Team

A team whose members are relatively similar in considered attributes

Heterogenous Team

A team whose members have a greater variety of attributes, perspectives, or backgrounds

Benefit of Diversity in Teams

-Wider range of skills, strengths, information, and perspectives

When Are Diverse Teams More Likely to Outperform?

-When members share information and develop effective shared ways of working

Intrapersonal Diversity Challenges

Biases within an individual that influence how they perceive and judge people who seem different

Stereotyping

Judging someone based on assumptions about a group to which they belong

Confirmation Bias

Favoring or noticing information that supports what you already believe while overlooking information that challenges it

Halo Effect

Forming an overly positive overall impression of someone based on one positive characteristic

Horns Effect

Forming an overly negative overall impression of someone based on one negative characteristic

Projection Bias

Assuming that other people feel or think the same way you do about perceived differences

Interpersonal Diversity Challenges

Difficulties between people that can arise when perceived differences create subgroups, favoritism, distrust, conflict, or limited communication

In-Group

A group you identify with or feel you belong to

Out-Group

A group you perceive as separate from the group you belong to

How Can Leaders Help Diverse Teams Succeed?

-Challenge bias ands in-group favoritism

-Build trust, fairness, information sharing, and appreciation for different contributions

Organizational Trust

The willingness to be vulnerable to another person based on positive expectations about their actions and intentions

Three Dimensions of Trust

Dispositional trust, cognitive trust, and affective trust

Dispositional Trust

-A person’s general tendency to trust others partly on their personality (combination of nature and nurture)

-TRUST PROPENSITY

Trust Propensity

A general expectation that you can rely on other people’s words, promises, and statements

High Trust Propensity

A tendency to trust others easily (risk: trust someone who hasn’t earned it)

Low Trust Propensity

A tendency to be suspicious of others

-Risk: Withholding trust from someone who deserves it

Cognitive Trust

-Trust based on a rational assessment of someone’s skills, reliability, and trustworthiness

-3 Factors of Perceived Trustworthiness

Three Factors of Perceived Trustworthiness

Ability, benevolence, and integrity

Ability

The skills, competencies, and expertise that allow someone to succeed in a particular area

Benevolence

The belief that someone wants to do good for you, beyond their own self-interest

Integrity

The perception that someone follows values and principles you consider acceptable

Affective Trust

Trust based on emotional connection, closeness, empathy, or friendship (goes beyond cognitive assessment)

Cognitive vs. Affective Trust

-Cognitive trust comes from judging someone as capable and reliable

-Affective trust comes from an emotional connection

How Can Managers Build Trust?

-Task-Oriented Employees: Demonstrate competence and reliability

-Relationally-Oriented Employees: Build emotional connections

Allow for differences in how quickly people develop trust

Organizational Justice

Employee’s perception of the fairness of an authority’s decisions and actions (distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational)

Distributive Justice

-Perceived fairness of outcomes and resources (pay, responsibilities, and evaluations)

-Equality (treating everyone the same) and equity (giving different people different things to succeed)

Procedural Justice

Perceived fairness of the process used to determine an outcome

Distributive vs. Procedural Justice

• Distributive: “Was the outcome fair?”

• Procedural: “Was the process used to reach it fair?”

Six Rules of Procedural Justice

Voice, correctability, consistency, bias suppression, representativeness, and accuracy

Voice

Giving employees a chance to express their opinions and views

Correctability

Giving employees a chance to appeal a decision or correct an error

Consistency

Applying procedures consistently

Bias Suppression

Keeping procedures free from personal self-interest and the people affected