Unit 7 - Ch 10: Conflict in Organizations

quality of outcomes and harmony in relationships

2 criteria for effective negotiation

substantive and emotional

2 types of conflict

substantive conflict

a fundamental disagreement over ends or goals to be pursued and the means for their accomplishment i.e. a dispute with a team member over a plan of action to be followed for a marketing strategy for a new product

arbitration

a neutral third party acts as a *judge* with the power to issue a decision binding for all parties

mediation

a neutral third party tries to *engage* the parties in negotiation

win-win conflict

achieved by a blend of both high cooperativeness and high assertiveness i.e. collaboration and problem- solving

appeal to common goals

can focus the attention of conflicting individuals and teams on one mutually desirable conclusion i.e. remind group you're all trying to get an A when doing ppt presentation

linking-pin roles

can reduce conflict by assigning people to work as liaisons between groups that are prone to conflict

-unresolved prior conflicts -role ambiguities -resource scarcities -task interdependencies -domain ambiguities -structural differentiation

common causes of conflicts in organizations

fixed pie myth, escalating commitment, over confidence, too much telling, too little listening

common negotiation pitfalls

vertical conflict

conflict that occurs between levels and commonly involves supervisor-subordinate disagreements (boss-employee)

role ambiguity conflict

conflict when people aren't sure what they are supposed to do; increases the odds of working at cross purposes

relationship goals

deal with outcomes that relate to how well people involved in the negotiation are able to work with one another once the process is concluded can you and your coworker still work together after a fight?

substance goals

deal with outcomes that relate to the content issues under negotiation

-accommodation/soothing -collaboration/problem-solving -avoidance -competition and authoritative demand

direct conflict management strategies

constituency negotiation

each party represents a broader constituency, like representatives of management and labor negotiating a collective bargaining agreement

decoupling, buffering, linking pin roles

examples of managed interdependence

power or value asymmetries

exist when interdependent people different substantially from one another in status and influence or in values

escalating commitment

high when negotiations begin with stating extreme demands, once they have been stated people become committed to them and are reluctant to back down

managed interdependence, appeals to common goals, upward referral, alternating scripts and myths

indirect conflict management strategies

line-staff conflict

involves disagreements between line and staff personnel over who has authority and control over decisions

emotional conflict

involves interpersonal difficulties that arise over feelings of anger, mistrust, dislike, fear, and resentment. commonly known as a *clash of personalities*

avoidance

involves pretending a conflict does not really exist, failing to participate in the situation; staying neutral always may be used when an issue is trivial, more important issues are pressing, or people need to cool down

accommodation or soothing

letting the other's wishes rule. smoothing over diffs to achieve harmony involves downplaying differences and finding areas of agreement; use when issues are more important to others than to yourself or to build credit for later disagreements

buffering

making a buffer between teams so any output slowdown or excess is absorbed by the inventory (buffer) and doesn't directly put pressure on the group reduces conflict BUT out of favor bc increases inventory costs

functional conflict / constructive conflict

moderate levels of conflict are beneficial to individual performance i.e. nothing's going to improve if there's satisfaction with the status quo

distributive negotiation

negotiation strategy that focuses on positions staked out or declared by conflicting parties each party tries to claim portions of the "pie" which has a fixed size, "my way or the highway" can be *hard* (each tries to get own way, although may lead to a win-lose) or *soft* (both make concessions just to get things over with, although may cause lingering dissatisfaction)

integrative or principled negotiation

negotiation strategy that focuses on the merits of the issues, everyone involves tries to enlarge the available pie and find agreed on ways to distribute it rather than stake claims to certain portions of it: "lets find a way to make this work for both of us"

overconfidence

negotiators develop overconfidence that their positions are the only correct ones

horizontal conflict

occurs between people working at the same organizational level (AB AB)

intergroup conflict

occurs between teams i.e. conflict between manufacturing (cost-efficiency goals) vs. marketing (sales-revenue goals)

avoidance-avoidance conflict

occurs when a person must choose between two negative and equally unattractive alternatives i.e. choosing between relocation to shitty town or termination of job

approach-approach conflict

occurs when a person must choose between two positive and equally attractive alternatives i.e. choosing between valued promotion in current organization or desirable job in another firm

approach-avoidance conflict

occurs when a person must decide to do something that has both positive and negative consequences i.e. offering of a promotion to a job with demanding hours

compromise

occurs when each party gives up something of value to the other, since no one got what they really wanted the antecedent conditions for future conflicts are established; use to arrive at temporary settlements of complex issues or when time is limited

effective negotiation

occurs when substance issues are resolved and working relationships are maintained or even improved

conflict resolution

occurs when the reasons for a conflict are eliminated

conflict

occurs whenever disagreements exist in a social situation over substantive issues, or whenever emotional antagonisms create friction

hearing problem

parties are unable or unwilling to listen well enough to understand what the other is saying

telling problem

parties dont really talk to each other and dont make themselves truly understood

upward referral

problems are moved from the level of conflicting individuals for more senior managers to address

fixed pie myth

purely distributive approach to negotiation, integrative negotiation holds that the pie can be expanded or used to the maximum advantage of all parties, not just one; you getting something isn't always taking something away from the other side

resource scarcity

relationships are likely to suffer as individuals try to position themselves to gain maximum shares of a limited resource pool

interorganizational conflict

rivalry between firms in same industry i.e. Ford vs. Hyundai, AT&T vs. Vodaphone Boeing vs. Airbus

collaboration and problem-solving

seeking true satisfaction of EVERYONE's concerns by working thru diffs involves recognition that something is wrong and needs attention through problem solving; use to gain true conflict-resolution when cost and time permit true test: both parties see that the solution (1) achieves each party's goals (2) is acceptable to both (3) establishes party whereby all see responsibility to be open and honest +eliminates the reasons for recurring conflict -often time and energy consuming, -not always feasible

competition

seeks victory by force, superior skill, or domination

manifest conflict

stage of conflict addressed by conflict resolution or suppression

perceived conflict

stage of conflict in which substantive or emotional differences are sensed

felt conflict

stage of conflict in which tension creates motivation to act

conflict antecedents

stage of conflict that sets the conditions for which conflicts are likely to emerge

decoupling

taking action to eliminate or reduce the required contact between conflicting parties

intrapersonal conflict

tension experienced within the individual due to actual or perceived pressures from incompatible goals for expectations

negotiation

the process of making joint decisions when the parties involves have different preferences; very useful for disagreements over things like wage, task objectives, perf evals, job assignments, work schedules, work locations, etc.

bargaining zone

the range between one party's minimum reservation point and the other party's maximum (i.e. student $50K minimum, recruiter $55K maximum)

arbitration and mediation

third party roles in negotiation

dysfunctional conflict / destructive conflict

too little or too much conflict is bad for performance i.e. when two members can't work together because of interpersonal differences or can't agree on task goals

authoritative command

uses formal authority to end conflict; may be used when quick and decisive action is vital or unpopular actions must be taken

intergroup negotiation

when manager is a part of a team that is negotiating with another group to arrive at a decision regarding a problem affecting both groups

lose-lose strategies

when nobody really gets what he/she wants in a conflict situation often due to lack of assertiveness i.e. avoidance, accommodation or smoothing, compromise

win-lose strategies

when one party achieves its desires at the expense of the other party's i.e. competition, authoritative command

domain ambiguities

when people are unclear about how their objectives or those of their teams fit with those being pursured by others

task and workflow interdependencies

when people must depend on others doing things first before they can do their own jobs

structural differentiation

when people work in parts of the organization where structures, goals, time horizons, and staff compositions are very different

group negotiation

when the manager is a part of a team whose members are negotiating to arrive at a common decision

two-party negotiation

when the manager negotiates directly with one other person

unresolved prior conflicts

when unresolved conflicts remain latent and emerge again in the future

attitudinal foundations

willingness to trust the other party, willingness to share information, willingness to ask concrete questions of the other party