MGT 300 ch 10

Arbitration

Arbitrators have high control over the final decision but low control over the process. Executives engage in this strategy by following previously agreed-upon rules of due process, listening to arguments from the disputing employees, and making a binding decision. Arbitration is applied as the final stage of grievances by unionized employees in many countries, but it also is increasingly applied to nonunion conflicts.

Avoiding

Avoiding tries to smooth over or evade conflict situations altogether. A common avoidance strategy is to steer clear of the coworkers associated with the conflict. A second avoidance strategy is to minimize discussion of the sensitive topic when interacting with the other person in the conflict. Notice from these examples that avoidance does not necessarily mean that we have a low concern for both one's own and the other party's interests. We might be very concerned about the issue but conclude that avoidance is the best solution, at least in the short term

conflict

the process in which one party perceives that its interests are being opposed or negatively affected by another party.2 It may occur when one party obstructs another's goals in some way, or just from one party's perception that the other party is going to do so. Conflict is ultimately based on perceptions; it exists whenever one party believes that another might obstruct its efforts, regardless of whether the other party actually intends to do so

target point

your realistic goal or expectation for a final agreement. This position must consider alternative strategies to achieve those objectives and test underlying assumptions about the situation

Forcing

Forcing tries to win the conflict at the other's expense. People who use this style typically have a win-lose orientation—they believe the parties are drawing from a fixed pie, so the more one party receives, the less the other party will receive. Consequently, this style relies on assertiveness and other hard influence tactics to get one's own way

Incompatable goals

Goal incompatibility occurs when the goals of one person or department seem to interfere with another person's or department's goals

conflict good or bad

The dominant view over most of this time has been that conflict is dysfunctional.4 The "conflict-is-bad" school of thought emphasizes that organizations work best through harmonious relations, and that employee-management conflict undermines organizational effectiveness.

Interdependence

The risk of conflict increases with the level of interdependence

Ambiguous Rules

This occurs because uncertainty increases the risk that one party intends to interfere with the other party's goals. Ambiguity also encourages political tactics and, in some cases, employees enter a free-for-all battle to win decisions in their favor. This explains why conflict is more common during mergers and acquisitions. Employees from both companies have conflicting practices and values, and few rules have developed to minimize the maneuvering for power and resources.

manifest conflict

* Conflict-handling style * Decisions * Overt behaviors

benefits of conflict

-Conflict energizes people to debate issues and evaluate alternatives more thoroughly -A second potential benefit is that moderate levels of conflict prevent organizations from becoming nonresponsive to their external environment. Differences of opinion encourage employees to engage in active thinking, and this often involves ongoing questioning and vigilance about how the organization can be more closely aligned with its customers, suppliers, and other stakeholders

negative consequences of workplace conflict

-Lower performance -Higher stress, dissatisfaction, and turnover -Less information sharing and coordination -Increased organizational politics -Wasted resources -Weakened team cohesion (conflict among team members)

integrative approach to negotiation

-Understand the other's position and interests, share and receive information in balanced manner. -Firm on limits/bottom line but creative in how you achieve your goals, win-win as much as possible.

Structural Sources of Conflict in Organizations

-incompatible goals -differentiation -interdependence -scarce resources -ambiguous rules -communication problems

interpersonal conflict handling styles

-problem solving -forcing -avoiding -yielding -compromising

Structural Approaches to Conflict Management

1. Emphasize Superordinate goals 2. Reduce Differentiation 3. Improve communication/understanding 4. Reduce interdependence 5. Increase resources 6. Clarify rules and procedures

create buffers

A buffer is any mechanism that loosens the coupling between two or more people or work units. This decoupling reduces the potential for conflict because the buffer reduces the effect of one party on the other. Building up inventories between people in an assembly line would be a buffer, for example, because each employee is less dependent in the short term on the previous person along that line

task conflict

A second potential benefit is that moderate levels of conflict prevent organizations from becoming nonresponsive to their external environment. Differences of opinion encourage employees to engage in active thinking, and this often involves ongoing questioning and vigilance about how the organization can be more closely aligned with its customers, suppliers, and other stakeholders

BATNA

BATNA estimates your power in the negotiation because it represents the estimated cost to you of walking away from the relationship. If sources outside the current negotiation are willing to negotiate with you for the product or service you need, then you have a high BATNA because it would cost you very little to walk away from the current negotiation. Having more than one BATNA to a negotiation increases your power. A common problem, however, is that people tend to overestimate their BATNA. They wrongly believe there are plenty of other ways to achieve their objective rather than through this negotiation. Wise advice here is to actively investigate multiple alternatives, not just the option being negotiated.

Positive consequences of workplace conflict

Better decision making —Tests logic of arguments —Questions assumptions More responsive to changing environment Stronger team cohesion (conflict between the team and outside opponents)

combine jobs

Combining jobs is both a form of job enrichment and a way to reduce task interdependence. Consider a toaster assembly system where one person inserts the heating element, another adds the sides, and so on. By combining these tasks so that each person assembles an entire toaster, the employees now have a pooled rather than sequential form of task interdependence and the likelihood of dysfunctional conflict is reduced.

compromising

Compromising involves looking for a position in which your losses are offset by equally valued gains. It involves actively searching for a middle ground between the interests of the two parties. Compromising also is associated with matching the other party's concessions and making conditional offers ("If you do X, I'll do Y.").

Conflict-Handling Style Contingencies and Problems

Conflict-Handling StylePreferred Style When . . .Problems with this Style -Problem solving Interests are not perfectly opposing (i.e., not pure win-lose) Parties have trust, openness, and time to share information Issues are complex Sharing information that the other party might use to his or her advantage -Forcing You have a deep conviction about your position (e.g., believe other person's behavior is unethical) Dispute requires a quick solution Other party would take advantage of more cooperative strategies Highest risk of relationship conflict May damage long-term relations, reducing future problem solving -Avoiding Conflict has become too emotionally charged Cost of trying to resolve the conflict outweighs the benefits Doesn't usually resolve the conflict May increase other party's frustration -Yielding Other party has substantially more power Issue is much less important to you than to the other party The value and logic of your position aren't as clear Increases other party's expectations in future conflict episodes -Compromising Parties have equal power Time pressure to resolve the conflict Parties lack trust/openness for problem solving Suboptimal solution where mutual gains are possible

distributive approach to negotiation

Confuse opponent, never let the other person know what you really need and why, hard ball tactics, winner takes all

Cultural & Gender Differences in conflict handling styles

Cultural values and norms influence the conflict-handling style used most often in a society, so they also represent an important contingency when choosing the preferred conflict-handling approach in that culture. For example, people who frequently use the conflict avoidance style might have more problems in cultures where the forcing style is common. Men and women also rely on different conflict-handling styles to some degree.48 The clearest difference is that men are more likely than women to use the forcing style, whether as managers or non-management employees. Female managers are more likely than male managers to use the avoiding style, whereas this difference is less pronounced between female and male non-management employees. The male preference for forcing has a logical foundation. Compared to men, women pay more attention to the relationship between the parties, so their preferred style tries to protect the relationship. This is apparent in less use of the forcing and more use of the avoiding styles of conflict handling. Women are also slightly more likely than men to use the compromising and yielding styles

Inquisition

Inquisitors control all discussion about the conflict. Like arbitrators, inquisitors have high decision control because they determine how to resolve the conflict. However, inquisitors also have high process control because they choose which information to examine and how to examine it, and they generally decide how the conflict resolution process will be handled.

use integrators

Integrators are employees who coordinate the activities of work units toward the completion of a shared task or project. For example, an individual might be responsible for coordinating the efforts of the research, production, advertising, and marketing departments in launching a new product line. Integrators reduce the amount of direct interaction required among diverse work units. Instead, work units communicate with each other indirectly through the integrator. Integrators rarely have direct authority over the departments they integrate, so they must rely on referent power and persuasion to manage conflict and accomplish the work.

Types of Third Party Intervention

Mediation, Inquisition, Arbitration

Meditation

Mediators have high control over the intervention process. In fact, their main purpose is to manage the process and context of interaction between the disputing parties. However, the parties make the final decision about how to resolve their differences. Thus, mediators have little or no control over the conflict resolution decision

conflict outcomes

Positive - better decisions, responsive organization, team cohesion Negative - stress/morale, turnover, politics, lower performance, distorted information

problem solving

Problem solving tries to find a solution that is beneficial for both parties. This is known as the win-win orientation because people using this style believe the resources at stake are expandable rather than fixed if the parties work together to find a creative solution. Information sharing is an important feature of this style because both parties collaborate to identify common ground and potential solutions that satisfy everyone involved.

emotional intelligence and emotional stability

Relationship conflict is less likely to occur, or is less likely to escalate, when team members have high levels of emotional intelligence and its associated personality characteristic: emotional stability.20 Employees with higher emotional intelligence and stability are better able to regulate their emotions during debate, which reduces the risk of escalating perceptions of interpersonal hostility. They are also more likely to view a coworker's emotional reaction as valuable information about that person's needs and expectations, rather than as a personal attack

cohesive team

Relationship conflict is suppressed when the conflict occurs within a highly cohesive team. The longer people work together, get to know each other, and develop mutual trust, the more latitude they give to each other to show emotions without being personally offended. This might explain why task conflict is more effective in top management teams than in teams of more junior staff.21 Strong cohesion also allows each person to know about and anticipate the behaviors and emotions of his or her teammates. Another benefit is that cohesion produces a stronger social identity with the group, so team members are motivated to avoid escalating relationship conflict during otherwise emotionally turbulent discussions

Model of the Conflict Process

Sources of Conflict > Conflict perceptions and emotions > Manifest Conflict > Conflict Outcomes

supportive team norms

Various team norms can hold relationship conflict at bay during task-focused debate. When team norms encourage openness, for instance, team members learn to appreciate honest dialogue without personally reacting to any emotional display during the disagreements.22 Other norms might discourage team members from displaying negative emotions toward coworkers. Team norms also encourage tactics that diffuse relationship conflict when it first appears. For instance, research has found that teams with low relationship conflict use humor to maintain positive group emotions, which offsets negative feelings team members might develop toward some coworkers during debate.

yielding

Yielding involves giving in completely to the other side's wishes, or at least cooperating with little or no attention to your own interests. This style involves making unilateral concessions and unconditional promises, as well as offering help with no expectation of reciprocal help

Bargaining Zone Model

Your position inital, target, resistance Opponents position resistance, target, initial

third-party conflict resolution

any attempt by a relatively neutral person to help conflicting parties resolve their differences

Subordinate Goals

are goals that the conflicting employees or departments value and whose attainment requires the joint resources and effort of those parties.50 These goals are called superordinate because they are higher-order aspirations such as the organization's strategic objectives rather than objectives specific to the individual or work unit. Research indicates that the most effective executive teams frame their decisions as superordinate goals that rise above each executive's departmental or divisional goals. Similarly, effective leaders reduce conflict through an inspirational vision that unifies employees and makes them less preoccupied with their subordinate goal difference

BATNA

best alternative to a negotiated agreement

Reducing interdependence

create buffers, use integrators, combine jobs

Differentiation

differences among people and work units regarding their training, values, beliefs, and experiences. Differentiation can be distinguished from goal incompatibility; two people or departments may agree on a common goal (serving customers better) but have different beliefs about how to achieve that goal (e.g., standardize employee behavior versus give employees autonomy in customer interactions). Differentiation produces the classic tension between employees from two companies brought together through a merger.

Reducing Differentiation

differentiation-differences regarding training, values, beliefs, and experiences—was identified earlier as one of the main sources of workplace conflict. Therefore, reducing differentiation is a logical approach to reducing dysfunctional conflict. As people develop common experiences and beliefs, they become more motivated to coordinate activities and resolve their disputes through constructive discussion

relationship conflict

focuses on characteristics of the people in the dispute. This type of conflict occurs when someone tries to dismiss an idea by questioning the competence of the people who introduce or support that idea. It also occurs when someone uses status to defend a position ("My suggestion is better because I have the most experience!") because status-based arguments inherently undermine the worth of others in the debate

Sources of Conflict

incompatible goals, differentiation, interdependence, scarce resources, ambiguous rules, poor communication

negotiation

occurs whenever two or more conflicting parties attempt to resolve their divergent goals by redefining the terms of their interdependence. In other words, people negotiate when they think that discussion can produce a more satisfactory arrangement (at least for them) in their exchange of goods or services

"optimal conflict" perspective

which states that organizations are most effective when employees experience some level of conflict, but become less effective with high levels of conflict

initial offer point

your opening offer to the other side—requires careful consideration because it can influence the negotiation outcome. If the initial offer is set higher—but not outrageously higher—than expected by the other party, it can anchor the negotiation at a higher point along the range by reframing the other party's perception of what is considered a "high" or "low" demand