Chapter 11 – Conflict and Negotiation in the Workplace • Conflict – a ...

Chapter 11 – Conflict and Negotiation in the Workplace  Conflict – a process in which one party perceives that its interests are being opposed or negatively affected by another party Is Conflict Good or Bad?  “conflict is bad” perspective now considered oversimplistic, but research shows that some conflict lowers job satisfaction, team cohesion, info sharing, biased perceptions and decisions, higher levels of org politics, stress, turnover, distracts employees and may cause them to withhold info, less motivated to communicate and try to understand other party, which leads to distorted perceptions and stereotypes  U-shaped relationship – wide acceptance in 1970s and still popular today o There is an optimal lvl of conflict, while too little/too much is bad for org effectiveness → research shows a moderate lvl of conflict produces several favourable outcomes (improved decision making, prevents orgs from stagnating and become nonresponsive to external enviro, potentially increases cohesion w/in the team)  The Emerging View: Constructive and Relationship Conflict o Constructive conflict (task/cognitive conflict) – occurs when ppl focus their discussion on the issue while maintaining respectfulness for ppl having other pov’s  Different pov’s are encouraged so that ideas/recommendations can be clarified, redesigned and tested for logical soundness → participants re-examine assumptions and beliefs about problem and possible solutions w/o triggering drive to define and associated negative emotions and ego-defense mechanism behaviours o Relationship conflict (socioemotional, affective, destructive conflict) occurs when ppl view their differences as personal attacks rather than attempts to resolve an issue  Attention on interpersonal incompatibilities rather than legitimate differences of opinion regarding tasks  Employees try to undermine others’ argument by questioning competency of person presenting that argument → triggers defense mechanisms and competitive orientation, less motivated to communicate and share info, making it more difficult to resolve conflict  Separating Constructive from Relationship Conflict o We should encourage constructive conflict for better decision making and minimize relationship conflict to avoid dysfunctional emotions and behaviours  However, research shows that constructive conflict often sows seeds of relationship conflict o 3 strategies to minimize lvl of relationship conflict  EI – if team members have high emotional intelligence, relationship conflict is less likely to occur/escalate; better able to regulate emotions during debate, reducing risk of escalating perceptions of interpersonal hostility; more likely to view co-workers emotional reaction as valuable info about person’s needs expectations  Cohesive team – relationship conflict is suppressed when conflict occurs w/in highly cohesive team; strong cohesion allows each person to know about and anticipate behaviours /emotions of teammates, gives more latitude to show emotions w/o being personally offended. Produces stronger social identity so team members are motivated to avoid relationship conflict



Supportive team norms – certain norms hold relationship conflict at bay during constructive debate, discourage team members from displaying negative emotions towards co-workers, encourage tactics that diffuse relationship conflict when it first appears

Conflict Process Model  Sources of Conflict lead one or both parties to perceive that conflict exists → awareness that one party’s statements and actions are incompatible w/ own goals → conflict perceptions/emotions manifest in decisions and behaviours of one party toward another/ style of resolving the conflict (conflict episodes) → manifest conflict to conflict perceptions/emotions (series of episodes that may cycle into conflict escalation) Structural Sources of Conflict in Organizations  Incompatible Goals – where goals of one person or dept seem to interfere w/ another person’s or dept’s goals  Differentiation – differences among ppl/depts./ other entities regarding training/values/beliefs/experiences o Different from goal incompatibility n/v 3 ppl/depts. May agree on common goal but differ in how to achieve that goal o Intergenerational conlicts largely due to effects of differentiation – younger/older employees have different needs/expectations/values o Info tech maintains differentiation b/c w/o face-to-face experiences, employees have more difficulty forming common mental modes and norms  Interdependence – exists when team members must share common inputs to individual tasks, need to interact in process of executing work , or receive outcomes that are partly determined by performance of others o Higher interdependence increases risk of conflict b/c there is greater chance that each side will disrupt or interfere w/ other side’s goals o Potential for conflict is higher in sequential interdependence work relationships, but highest is in reciprocal interdependence situations (employees highly dependent on each other and have a higher chance of interfering w/ each other’s work and personal goals)  Scarce resources o Conflict generated b/c each person/unit requiring same resource necessarily others who also need that resource to fulfill their goals – not enough financial, human capital, other resources for everyone to accomplish goals, so employees need to justify why they should receive the resources  Ambiguous rules (or complete lack of them) o Uncertainty increases risk that one party will interfere w/ other party’s goals, encourages political tactics, or a free-for-all battle to win decisions in their favour → hence why conflict is more common during mergers/acquisitions o When clear rules exist, employees know what to expect from each other and have agreed to abide by those rules  Communication problems o Lack of opportunity/ability/motivation to communicate effectively breeds conflict o No opportunity – rely more on stereotypes to understand other party in conflict, which can distort meaning of an opponent’s actions which will escalate conflict

o

o

Lack of skill – some ppl don’t know how to communicate in a diplomatic/nonconfrontational manner, which can heighten the other side’s perception of the conflict Low motivation – some ppl avoid interacting w/ others due to uncomfortableness of relationship conflict, but there is less opportunity to empathize w/ other side, so rey on stereotypes

Interpersonal conflict handling styles  Problem Solving o Tries to find mutually beneficial solution for both parties (win-win situation) o Ppl believe resources at stake are expandable rather than ficxd if parties work together to find a solution o Info sharing is important feature – parties collaborate to identify common ground and potential solutions  Forcing o Tries to win the conflict at other’s expense (win-lose orientation) o Parties are drawing from a fixed pie, so more one party receives, less the other party receives o Relies on hard influence tactics  Avoiding o Tries to smooth over/avoid conflict situations together o Low concern for both self and other party – suppress thinking about the fonclit  Yielding o Giving in completely to other side’s wishes, or cooperating w/ little or no attention to your own interests o Making unilateral concessions and unconditional promises, offering help w/ no expectation of reciprocal help  Compromising o Looking for a position in which your losses are offset by equally valued gains o Matching other party’s concessions making conditional promises/threats, actively searching for middle ground  Choosing the best conflict handling style o Ppl tend towards 1-2 conflict handling styles that best match their personality, personal/cultural values/past experience o Confucian cultures prefer non-confrontational conflict handling styles b/c consistent w/ cultural value of harmony o Western cultures generally more comfortable w/ forcing approach (although less popular than other styles) o Gender differences – problem solving/compromising preferred more by women and less by men

Structural Approaches to Conflict Management  Emphasizing superordinate goal (any goal that both conflicting parties value and whose attainment is beyond the resources and effort of either party alone) o Increasing commitment to corporate-wide goals makes employees pay less attention to competing goals, reducing perceived conflict w/ co-workers o Establishment of common frame of reference reduces problem of differentiation o Most effective exec teams frame decisions as superordinate goals rising above each exec’s dept/division goals  Reducing differentiation o Reduce differences that produce the conflict in the first place – more employees think they have common backgrounds/experiences with other workers, more motivated they are to coordinate their activities and resolve conflict through constructive discussion w/ co-workers  Improving Communication and Understanding o More meaningful interaction we have w/ someone, less we rely on stereotypes to understand that person o Warnings: communication and understanding should be applied after differentiation b/w two sides is low, otherwise may escalate conflict; ppl in collectivist/high power distance cultures are less comfortable w/ practice of resolving differences through direct and open communication (easily threatens needs to save face and maintain harmony)  Reducing Interdependence o Dividing shared resource so each party has exclusive use at different times, if cost effective o Sequentially//reciprocally interdependent jobs can be combined to form pooled interdependence

 

o Buffers (resources, human buffers) can also reduce interdependence b/w ppl Increasing resources o May not be cost-effective, but decision makers need to weigh costs of increasing resources w/ costs of dysfunctional conflict arising out of resource scarcity Clarifying rules and procedures o Rules establish changes to terms of interdependence, and parties affected by rules are involved in process of deciding terms of interdependence – involves negotiation

Resolving conflict through negotiation  Negotiation – the process whereby 2+ conflicting parties attempt to resolve divergent goals by redefining terms of their interdependence o Ppl negotiate when they think that discussion can produce a more satisfactory arrangement in their exchange of goods/services  Research suggests negotiations are more successful when parties adopt a problem-solving style, but may be costly o Win-lose style is unlikely to produce optimal solution, b/c parties haven’t shared info necessary to discover a mutually satisfactory solution o Information is power, so info sharing gives other party more power to leverage a better deal if opportunity occurs  Bargaining zone model of negotiations o Bargaining zone – negotiation process moves each other along continuum w/ an area of potential overlap o Purely win-lose situation (one side’s gain is the other’s loss) but can also be applied in situations where both sides potentially gain from negotiations o 3 negotiating points  Initial offer point – team’s opening offer to other party (best expectation or piein-the-sky starting point)  Target point – team’s realistic goal or expectation for a final agreement  Resistance point – point beyond which team will make no further concessions o Negotiations begin by parties describing initial offer points (only starting point that will change) o in win-lose situations, neither target nor resistance point is revealed to other party, but other side tries to discover resistance point b/c this helps them determine how much they can gain w/o breaking off negotiations o in win-win situations, objective is to find a solution that keeps everyone close to initial offer points  Situational influences on negotiations o Location  Easier to negotiate on own turf since you’re familiar w/ enviro and can maintain comfortable routines, no need to cope w/ travel-related stress or depend on others for resources during negotiations o Physical setting  Physical distance b/w parties, seating arrangements and formality of setting can influence orientation towards each other and disputes  Win-lose orientation usually developed when parties sit face-to-face, whereas win-win orientation can be cultivated by deliberating interspersing participants around table





Or sitting everyone so they’re looking at a whiteboard can reinforce notion of common issue o Time Passage, Deadlines  More time invested in negotiations, stronger commitment to reaching an agreement by increasing motivation to resolve the conflict, but also fuels escalation of commitment problems  Timelines may be useful if they motivate parties to complete negotiations, but are usually a liability since they inhibit a problem-solving mgmt. style and process info less effectively, and make excessive concessions and soften demands more rapidly as timeline approaches o Audience characteristics  Negotiators tend to act differently when audience observes negotiation or has detailed info about process as compared to only seeing the end results  If less surveillance, negotiators tend to be more competitive, less willing to make concessions, and more likely to use political tactics; w/ more surveillance, more interest in saving face Negotiator skills o Preparation/goal setting  Ppl have more favourable results when they prepare and set goals – should think carefully about initial offer, target and resistance points, consider alternative strategies if negotiations fail, check underlying assumptions, goals/values, and research what other party wants o Gathering info  Should spend more time listening closely to other party and asking for details  Have a team of ppl participate in negotiations can gather more info about opponent’s interests and needs → discover more low-cost concessions/proposals o Communicating effectively  In a way that maintains effective relationships b/w parties, esp. minimizing socioemotional conflict by focusing on issues rather than ppl, and mastering persuasion o Making concessions  Concessions are important b/c they enable parties to move towards area of potential agreement, symbolize each other’s motivation to bargain in good faith, and tell other party of relative importance of negotiating items  Best strategy – be moderately tough and give just enough concessions to communicate sincerity and motivation to resolving conflict

Third Party conflict resolution – any attempt by a relatively neutral person to help parties resolve differences  Arbitration – high control over final decision, but low control over process o Following previously agreed rules of process, listening to arguments from disputing parties and making a binding decision  Inquisition – control all discussion about conflict o High decision control b/c choose form of conflict resolution but also have high process control b/c they choose what info to examine and how to examine it  Mediation – high control over intervention process (main purpose is to manage process and context of interaction) but little/no control over conflict resolution decision



Choosing the best third-party intervention strategy o Ppl in positions of authority tend to prefer inquisitional approach – consistent w/ decision-oriented nature of managerial jobs, but this approach is usually the less effective in org settings (due to limited info collected and seen by employees as unfair) o Generally speaking, for everyday disputes, mediation approach is best b/c gives employees more responsibility for resolving own differences – highest lvl of employee satisfaction w/ conflict process and outcomes, though not the most efficient o If employees can’t resolve differences, arbitration seems to work best due to predetermined rules of evidence and other process creating a higher sense of fairness – preferred when org’s goals take priority over individual goals