conflict and negotiation

Chapter 14 Conflict and Negotiation Page

Chapter 14Conflict and Negotiation

LEARNING OBJECTIVES)

After studying this chapter, students should be able to:

1. Differentiate between the traditional and interactionist views of conflict.2. Describe the three types of conflict and the three loci of conflict.3. Outline the conflict process.4. Contrast distributive and integrative bargaining.5. Apply the five steps of the negotiation process.6. Show how individual differences influence negotiations.7. Assess the roles and functions of third-party negotiations.

INSTRUCTOR’S RESOURCES

Instructors may wish to use the following resources when presenting this chapter.

Learning Catalytics Questions: Instructor Directions and Follow-Up

Organizational Behavior Concept

LC Question Instructor Directions and Follow-Up

Conflict handling intentions

Rank order your preferred method of handling conflict.

After explaining dimensions of conflict handling intentions, ask students to think about situations where they have had conflict. Then have them answer this question and rank order their preferences.

Conflict management techniques

What is an example of a conflict management technique that you have used successfully? Use the list in the book or come up with your own.

Introduce this question after explaining behavior. Refer students to the chart and encourage them to come up with their own example of a technique. Debrief by reviewing some of the examples.

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

532


Text Exercises

Myth or Science?: “Teams Negotiate Better than Individuals in Collectivistic Cultures”

glOBalization!: Trust Is an Issue An Ethical Choice: Using Empathy to Negotiate More Ethically Point/Counterpoint: Pro Sports Strikes Are Caused by Greedy Owners Questions for Review Experiential Exercise: A Negotiation Role-Play Ethical Dilemma: The Lowball Applicant

Text Cases

Case Incident 1: Choosing Your Battles Case Incident 2: Twinkies, Rubber Rooms, and Collective Bargaining

Instructor’s Choice

This section presents an exercise that is NOT found in the student's textbook. Instructor's Choice reinforces the text's emphasis through various activities. Some Instructor's Choice activities are centered on debates, group exercises, Internet research, and student experiences. Some can be used in class in their entirety, while others require some additional work on the student's part. The course instructor may choose to use these at any time throughout the class—some may be more effective as icebreakers, while some may be used to pull together various concepts covered in the chapter.

Web Exercises

At the end of each chapter of this Instructor’s Manual, you will find suggested exercises and ideas for researching OB topics on the Internet. The exercises “Exploring OB Topics on the Web” are set up so that you can simply photocopy the pages, distribute them to your class, and make assignments accordingly. You may want to assign the exercises as an out-of-class activity or as lab activities with your class.

Summary and Implications for Managers

A. While many people assume conflict lowers group and organizational performance, this assumption is frequently incorrect.

B. Conflict can be either constructive or destructive to the functioning of a group or unit.

C. As shown in Exhibit 14-8, levels of conflict can be either too high or too low to be constructive. Either extreme hinders performance.

D. An optimal level is one that prevents stagnation, stimulates creativity, allows tensions to be released, and initiates the seeds of change without being disruptive or preventing coordination of activities. Specific implications for managers are below:


533


1. As Exhibit 14-8 suggests, choose an authoritarian management style in emergencies, when unpopular actions need to be implemented (such as cost cutting, enforcement of unpopular rules, discipline), and when the issue is vital to the organization’s welfare. Be certain to communicate your logic when possible to make certain employees remain engaged and productive.

2. Seek integrative solutions when your objective is to learn, when you want to merge insights from people with different perspectives, when you need to gain commitment by incorporating concerns into a consensus, and when you need to work through feelings that have interfered with a relationship.

3. It is best to avoid an issue when it is trivial or symptomatic of other issues, when more important issues are pressing, when you perceive no chance of satisfying everyone’s concerns, when people need to cool down and regain perspective, when gathering information, and when others can resolve the conflict more effectively.

4. You can build trust by accommodating others when you find you’re wrong, when you need to demonstrate reasonableness, when other positions need to be heard, when issues are more important to others than to yourself, when you want to satisfy others and maintain cooperation, when you can build social credits for later issues, to minimize loss when you are outmatched and losing, and when employees should learn from their own mistakes.

5. Consider compromising when goals are important but not worth potential disruption, when opponents with equal power are committed to mutually exclusive goals, and when you need temporary settlements to complex issues.

6. Distributive bargaining can resolve disputes, but it often reduces the satisfaction of one or more negotiators because it is confrontational and focused on the short term. Integrative bargaining, in contrast, tends to provide outcomes that satisfy all parties and build lasting relationships.

7. Make sure you set aggressive negotiating goals and try to find creative ways to achieve the objectives of both parties, especially when you value the long-term relationship with the other party. That doesn’t mean sacrificing your self-interest; rather, it means trying to find creative solutions that give both parties what they really want.

This chapter begins with a discussion of the corporate culture at banking giant JP Morgan Chase. The company is the largest U.S. bank and boasts a decade-long record of never reporting a quarterly loss. However, despite its seeming success, the bank may be hiding a contentious corporate culture – one in which conflicts are avoided at all costs and divergent ways of thinking are discouraged.

BRIEF CHAPTER OUTLINE

I. A Definition of ConflictA. There has been no shortage of definitions of conflict, but common to most is the

idea that conflict is a perception. 1. If no one is aware of a conflict, then it is generally agreed no conflict exists.

a. Also needed to begin the conflict process are opposition or incompatibility and interaction.


534


2. We define conflict as a process that begins when one party perceives that another party has negatively affected, or is about to negatively affect, something that the first party cares about.

B. The Traditional View of Conflict1. The early approach to conflict assumed all conflict was bad and to be avoided.2. It was viewed negatively and discussed with such terms as violence,

destruction, and irrationality to reinforce its negative connotation. 3. This traditional view of conflict was consistent with attitudes about group

behavior that prevailed in the 1930s and 1940s. C. The Interactionist View of Conflict

1. The interactionist view of conflict encourages conflict on the grounds that a harmonious, peaceful, tranquil, and cooperative group is prone to becoming static, apathetic, and unresponsive to needs for change and innovation.

2. But, not all conflicts are good. a. Functional conflict supports the goals of the group and improves its

performance.b. Conflicts that hinder group performance are dysfunctional or destructive

forms of conflict.II. Types and Loci of Conflict

A. Types of Conflict1. Researchers have classified conflicts into three categories: task, relationship,

or process.a. Task conflict relates to the content and goals of the work.b. Relationship conflict focuses on interpersonal relationships.c. Process conflict is about how the work gets done.

2. Studies demonstrate that relationship conflicts, at least in work settings, are almost always dysfunctional. a. Why? It appears that the friction and interpersonal hostilities inherent in

relationship conflicts increase personality clashes and decrease mutual understanding, which hinders the completion of organizational tasks.

3. Of the three types, relationship conflicts also appear to be the most psychologically exhausting to individuals.

4. While scholars agree that relationship conflict is dysfunctional, there is considerably less agreement as to whether task and process conflicts are functional. a. Early research suggested that task conflict within groups was associated

with higher group performance, but a recent review of 116 studies found that task conflict was essentially unrelated to group performance.

b. However, there were factors that could create a relationship between conflict and performance.

c. One such factor was whether the conflict included top management or occurred lower in the organization.

d. Task conflict among top management teams was positively associated with their performance, whereas conflict lower in the organization was negatively associated with group performance.


535


e. This review also found that it mattered whether other types of conflict were occurring at the same time.

f. If task and relationship conflict occurred together, task conflict was more likely negative, whereas if task conflict occurred by itself, it more likely was positive.

5. Finally, some scholars have argued that the strength of conflict is important—if task conflict is very low, people aren’t really engaged or addressing the important issues. a. If task conflict is too high, however, infighting will quickly degenerate

into personality conflict. b. According to this view, moderate levels of task conflict are optimal.

i. Supporting this argument, one study in China found that moderate levels of task conflict in the early development stage increased creativity in groups, but high levels decreased team performance.

6. Finally, the personalities of the teams appear to matter. a. A recent study demonstrated that teams made up of individuals who are,

on average, high in openness and emotional stability are better able to turn task conflict into increased group performance.

b. The reason may be that open and emotionally stable teams can put task conflict in perspective and focus on how the variance in ideas can help solve the problem, rather than letting it degenerate into relationship conflicts.

7. What about process conflict? Researchers found that process conflicts revolve around delegation and roles. Conflicts over delegation often revolve around shirking, and conflicts over roles can leave some group members feeling marginalized.

8. Thus, process conflicts often become highly personalized and quickly devolve into relationship conflicts. a. It’s also true, of course, that arguing about how to do something takes time

away from actually doing it. We’re all been part of groups in which the arguments and debates about roles and responsibilities seem to go nowhere.

B. Loci of Conflict1. Another way to understand conflict is to consider its locus, or where the

conflict occurs. 2. Here, too, there are three basic types.

a. Dyadic conflict is conflict between two people. b. Intragroup conflict occurs within a group or team. c. Intergroup conflict is conflict between groups or teams.

3. Nearly all the literature on task, relationship, and process conflict considers intragroup conflict (within the group).

4. That makes sense given that groups and teams often exist only to perform a particular task. However, it doesn’t necessarily tell us about the other loci of conflict.

5. Another intriguing question about loci is whether conflicts interact or buffer one another.


536


a. Intense intergroup conflict can be quite stressful to group members and might well affect the way they interact.

6. Thus, understanding functional and dysfunctional conflict requires not only that we identify the type of conflict; we also need to know where it occurs.

7. It’s possible that while the concepts of task, relationship, and process conflict are useful in understanding intragroup or even dyadic conflict, they are less useful in explaining the effects of intergroup conflict.

8. In sum, the traditional view that all conflict should be eliminated is short-sighted. a. The interactionist view that conflict can stimulate active discussion

without spilling over into negative, disruptive emotions is incomplete.b. Thinking about conflict in terms of type and locus helps us realize that it is

probably inevitable in most organizations, and when it does occur, we can attempt to make it as productive as possible.

III. The Conflict Process A. Stage I: Potential Opposition or Incompatibility (Exhibit 14-1)

1. Communicationa. Communication as a source of conflict represents those opposing forces

that arise from semantic difficulties, misunderstandings, and “noise” in the communication channels.

b. Differing word connotations, jargon, insufficient exchange of information, and noise in the communication channel are all barriers to communication and potential antecedents to conflict.

c. The potential for conflict increases when either too little or too much communication takes place.

d. Communication is functional up to a point, after which it is possible to over communicate, increasing the potential for conflict.

2. Structurea. The term structure includes variables such as size, degree of

specialization, jurisdictional clarity, member-goal compatibility, leadership styles, reward systems, and the degree of dependence.

b. Size and specialization act as forces to stimulate conflict. c. The greater the ambiguity in responsibility for actions lies, the greater the

potential for conflict. d. The diversity of goals among groups is a major source of conflict. e. When groups within an organization seek diverse ends, some of which are

inherently at odds, opportunities for conflict increase.f. Reward systems, too, create conflict when one member’s gain is at

another’s expense. g. Finally, if a group is dependent on another group, opposing forces are

stimulated. 3. Personal variables—include personality, emotions, and values.

a. People high in the personality traits of disagreeableness, neuroticism, or self-monitoring are prone to tangle with other people more often, and to react poorly when conflicts occur.


537


b. Emotions can also cause conflict even when they are not directed at others.

B. Stage II: Cognition and Personalization1. Antecedent conditions lead to conflict only when the parties are affected by

and aware of it. 2. However, because a disagreement is a perceived conflict does not mean it is

personalized. 3. Conflict is personalized when it is felt and when individuals become

emotionally involved. 4. This stage is where conflict issues tend to be defined and this definition

delineates the possible settlements. 5. Second, emotions play a major role in shaping perceptions. 6. Negative emotions produce oversimplification of issues, reductions in trust,

and negative interpretations of the other party’s behavior.7. Positive feelings increase the tendency to see potential relationships among

the elements of a problem, to take a broader view of the situation, and to develop more innovative solutions.

C. Stage III: Intentions 1. Intentions are decisions to act in a given way.

a. Why are intentions separated out as a distinct stage? Merely one party attributing the wrong intentions to the other escalates a lot of conflicts.

b. One author’s effort to identify the primary conflict-handling intentions is represented in Exhibit 14–2.

c. Five conflict-handling intentions can be identified: competing, collaborating, avoiding, accommodating, and compromising.

2. Intentions are not always fixed. a. They might change because of reconceptualization or because of an

emotional reaction.b. However, individuals have preferences among the five conflict-handling

intentions.c. We can predict a person’s intentions rather well from a combination of

intellectual and personality characteristics. D. Stage IV: Behavior (Exhibit 14-3)

1. Stage IV is where conflicts become visible. The behavior stage includes the statements, actions, and reactions made by the conflicting parties. These conflict behaviors are usually overt attempts to implement each party’s intentions.

2. At the lower part of the continuum, conflicts are characterized by subtle, indirect, and highly controlled forms of tension.

3. Conflict intensities escalate as they move upward along the continuum until they become highly destructive.

4. If a conflict is dysfunctional, what can the parties do to de-escalate it? Or, conversely, what options exist if conflict is too low and needs to be increased? a. This brings us to techniques of conflict management. b. Exhibit 14-4 lists the major resolution and stimulation techniques that

allow managers to control conflict levels.


538


c. We have already described several as conflict-handling intentions. d. Under ideal conditions, a person’s intentions should translate into

comparable behaviors.E. Stage V: Outcomes

1. Outcomes may be functional—improving group performance, or dysfunctional in hindering it. (Exhibit 14-1)

2. Functional outcomesa. Conflict is constructive when it:

i. Improves the quality of decisions.ii. Stimulates creativity and innovation. iii. Encourages interest and curiosity. iv. Provides the medium through which problems can be aired and

tensions released. v. Fosters an environment of self-evaluation and change.

b. The evidence suggests that conflict can improve the quality of decision making.

c. Research studies in diverse settings confirm the functionality of discussion.

d. These observations lead us to predict benefits to organizations from the increasing cultural diversity of the workforce.

3. Dysfunctional outcomesa. The destructive consequences of conflict on the performance of a group or

an organization are generally well known.b. A substantial body of literature documents how dysfunctional conflicts

can reduce group effectiveness. 4. Managing functional conflict

a. If managers recognize that in some situations conflict can be beneficial, what can they do to manage conflict effectively in their organizations?

b. Groups that resolve conflicts successfully discuss differences of opinion openly and are prepared to manage conflict when it arises.

c. Differences across countries in conflict resolution strategies may be based on collectivistic tendencies and motives.

IV. NegotiationA. Introduction

1. Negotiation is a process in which two or more parties exchange goods or services and attempt to agree upon the exchange rate for them. We use the terms negotiation and bargaining interchangeably.

2. Although we commonly think of the outcomes of negotiation in one-shot economic terms, every negotiation in organizations also affects the relationship between the negotiators and the way the negotiators feel about themselves.

3. Depending on how much the parties are going to interact with one another, sometimes maintaining the social relationship and behaving ethically will be just as important as achieving an immediate outcome of bargaining.

4. Note that we use the terms negotiation and bargaining interchangeably.


539


B. Bargaining Strategies 1. Two general approaches to negotiation: (Exhibit 14-5)

a. Distributive bargainingb. Integrative bargaining

2. Distributive bargaininga. The essence of distributive bargaining is negotiating over who gets what

share of a fixed pie. (Exhibit 14-6)i. By fixed pie, we mean a set amount of goods or services to be divvied

up. ii. When the pie is fixed, or the parties believe it is, they tend to bargain

distributively.b. The most widely cited example of distributive bargaining is in labor-

management negotiations over wages. i. The essence of distributive bargaining is depicted in Exhibit 14–6.

(a) Parties A and B represent two negotiators. (b) Each has a target point that defines what he or she would like to

achieve. (c) Each also has a resistance point, which marks the lowest outcome

that is acceptable. (d) The area between these two points makes up each one’s aspiration

range. (e) As long as there is some overlap between A and B’s aspiration

ranges, there exists a settlement range where each one’s aspirations can be met.

c. When engaged in distributive bargaining, one of the best things you can do is make the first offer, and make it an aggressive one.

d. Another distributive bargaining tactic is revealing a deadline. 3. Integrative bargaining

a. In contrast to distributive bargaining, integrative bargaining operates under the assumption that one or more of the possible settlements can create a win–win solution.

b. Both parties must be engaged for it to work.c. In terms of intra-organizational behavior, all things being equal,

integrative bargaining is preferable to distributive bargaining. d. Why do we not see more integrative bargaining in organizations? The

answer lies in the conditions necessary for this type of negotiation to succeed.

e. There are ways to achieve more integrative outcomes. i. Individuals who bargain in teams reach more integrative agreements

than those who bargain individually because more ideas are generated when more people are at the bargaining table. So, try bargaining in teams.

ii. Another way to achieve higher joint-gain settlements is to put more issues on the table.

iii. Focus also on the underlying interests of both sides rather than on issues.


540


iv. Negotiations that occur when both parties are focused on learning and understanding the other side tend to also yield higher joint outcomes than those in which parties are more interested in their individual bottom-line outcomes.

4. Compromise might be your worst enemy in negotiating a win-win agreement. i. The reason is that compromising reduces the pressure to bargain

integratively. ii. After all, if you or your opponent caves in easily, it doesn’t require

anyone to be creative to reach a settlement. Thus, people end up settling for less than they could have obtained if they had been forced to consider the other party’s interests, trade off issues, and be creative.

C. The Negotiation Process (Exhibit 14-7)1. Preparation and planning

a. Do your homework. i. What is the nature of the conflict? ii. What is the history leading up to this negotiation? iii. Who is involved, and what are their perceptions of the conflict? iv. What do you want from the negotiation? v. What are your goals?

b. You also want assess what you think are the other party’s goals. c. When you can anticipate your opponent’s position, you are better

equipped to counter his or her arguments with the facts and figures that support your position.

d. Relationships will change as a result of a negotiation, so that’s another outcome to take into consideration.

e. Once you have gathered your information, use it to develop a strategy. i. Determine your and the other side’s Best Alternative to a Negotiated

Agreement (BATNA). ii. Your BATNA determines the lowest value acceptable to you for a

negotiated agreement. iii. Any offer you receive that is higher than your BATNA is better than

an impasse. 2. Definition of ground rules

a. Who will do the negotiating? Where will it take place? What time constraints, if any, will apply?

b. To what issues will negotiation be limited? Will there be a specific procedure to follow if an impasse is reached?

c. During this phase, the parties will also exchange their initial proposals or demands.

3. Clarification and justification a. When initial positions have been exchanged, explain, amplify, clarify,

bolster, and justify your original demands. b. This need not be confrontational. c. You might want to provide the other party with any documentation that

helps support your position.


541


4. Bargaining and problem solvinga. The essence of the negotiation process is the actual give-and-take in trying

to hash out an agreement. b. Concessions will undoubtedly need to be made by both parties.

5. Closure and implementationa. The final step—formalizing the agreement that has been worked out and

developing any procedures that are necessary for implementation and monitoring.

b. Major negotiations will require hammering out the specifics in a formal contract.

c. For most cases, however, closure of the negotiation process is nothing more formal than a handshake.

D. Individual Differences in Negotiation Effectiveness1. Personality traits in negotiation

a. Can you predict an opponent’s negotiating tactics if you know something about his/her personality? The evidence says “sort of.”

b. The evidence suggests that overall agreeableness is weakly related to negotiation outcomes. Why is this the case?i. It appears that the degree to which agreeableness, and personality

more generally, affects negotiation outcomes depends on the situation. ii. The importance of being extraverted in negotiations, for example, will

very much depend on how the other party reacts to someone who is assertive and enthusiastic.

iii. A recent study suggested that the type of negotiations matter as well. In this study, agreeable individuals reacted more positively and felt less stress (measured by their cortisol levels) in integrative negotiations than in distributive ones. (a) Low levels of stress, in turn, made for more effective negotiation

outcomes.iv. Research also suggests intelligence predicts negotiation effectiveness,

but, as with personality, the effects aren’t especially strong.2. Moods/emotions in negotiation

a. Moods and emotions influence negotiation, but the way they do depends on the type of negotiation.

b. Anxiety also appears to have an impact on negotiation. c. One study found that anxious negotiators expect lower outcomes from

negotiations, respond to offers more quickly, and exit the bargaining process more quickly, which leads them to obtain worse outcomes.

d. All these findings regarding emotions have related to distributive bargains. In integrative negotiations, in contrast, positive moods and emotions appear to lead to more integrative agreements (higher levels of joint gain).

3. Culture in negotiations a. Do people from different cultures negotiate differently? The simple

answer is the obvious one: yes, they do.b. First, it appears that people generally negotiate more effectively within

cultures than between them.


542


i. For example, a Colombian is apt to do better negotiating with a Colombian than with a Sri Lankan.

c. Second, it appears that in cross-cultural negotiations, it is especially important that the negotiators be high in openness.

d. Finally, because emotions are culturally sensitive, negotiators need to be especially aware of the emotional dynamics in cross-cultural negotiation.

4. Gender differences in negotiationsa. Men and women negotiate differently and these differences affect

outcomes. b. A popular stereotype is that women are more cooperative, pleasant, and

relationship-oriented in negotiations than are men. There is some merit to this.

c. Men tend to place a higher value on status, power, and recognition, whereas women tend to place a higher value on compassion and altruism.

d. Moreover, women do tend to value relationship outcomes more than men, and men tend to value economic outcomes more than women.

e. These differences affect both negotiation behavior and negotiation outcomes. i. Compared to men, women tend to behave in a less assertive, less self-

interested, and more accommodating manner. ii. However, the disparity goes even further than that. Because of the way

women approach negotiation, other negotiators seek to exploit female negotiators by, for example, making lower salary offers.

f. So what can be done to change this troublesome state of affairs? i. First, organizational culture plays a role here. ii. If an organization, even unwittingly, encourages a predominantly

competitive model for negotiators, this will tend to increase gender-stereotypic behaviors (men negotiating competitively, women negotiating cooperatively), and it will also increase backlash when women go against stereotype.

iii. Second, at an individual level, women cannot directly control male stereotypes of women. Fortunately, such stereotypes are fading. However, women can control their own negotiating behavior.

V. Third-Party NegotiationsA. When individuals or group representatives reach a stalemate and are unable to

resolve their differences through direct negotiations, they may turn to a third party.

B. A mediator is a neutral third party who facilitates a negotiated solution by using reasoning and persuasion, suggesting alternatives, and the like.

C. An arbitrator is a third party with the authority to dictate an agreement. D. A conciliator is a trusted third party who provides an informal communication

link among parties. VI. Summary and Implications for Managers



543




D. An optimal level is one that prevents stagnation, stimulates creativity, allows tensions to be released, and initiates the seeds of change without being disruptive or preventing coordination of activities. Specific implications for managers are below:1. As Exhibit 14-8 suggests, choose an authoritarian management style in

emergencies, when unpopular actions need to be implemented (such as cost cutting, enforcement of unpopular rules, discipline), and when the issue is vital to the organization’s welfare. Be certain to communicate your logic when possible to make certain employees remain engaged and productive.








544


EXPANDED CHAPTER OUTLINE

I. A Definition of ConflictA. There has been no shortage of definitions of conflict, but common to most is the

idea that conflict is a perception. 1. If no one is aware of a conflict, then it is generally agreed no conflict exists.

a. Also needed to begin the conflict process are opposition or incompatibility and interaction.

B. We define conflict as a process that begins when one party perceives that another party has negatively affected, or is about to negatively affect, something that the first party cares about. 1. This describes that point when an interaction “crosses over” to become an

inter-party conflict. 2. It encompasses the wide range of conflicts that people experience in

organizations.C. The Traditional View of Conflict

1. The early approach to conflict assumed all conflict was bad and to be avoided.2. It was viewed negatively and discussed with such terms as violence,

destruction, and irrationality to reinforce its negative connotation. 3. This traditional view of conflict was consistent with attitudes about group

behavior that prevailed in the 1930s and 1940s. 4. Conflict was a dysfunctional outcome resulting from poor communication, a

lack of openness and trust between people, and the failure of managers to be responsive to the needs and aspirations of their employees.

5. The view that all conflict is bad certainly offers a simple approach to looking at the behavior of people who create conflict.

6. We need merely direct our attention to the causes of conflict and correct those malfunctions to improve group and organizational performance.

7. This view of conflict fell out of favor for a long time as researchers came to realize that some level of conflict was inevitable.

D. The Interactionist View of Conflict1. The interactionist view of conflict encourages conflict on the grounds that a

harmonious, peaceful, tranquil, and cooperative group is prone to becoming static, apathetic, and unresponsive to needs for change and innovation.

2. But, not all conflicts are good. a. Functional conflict supports the goals of the group and improves its

performance.b. Conflicts that hinder group performance are dysfunctional or destructive

forms of conflict.II. Types and Loci of Conflict

A. Types of Conflict1. Researchers have classified conflicts into three categories: task, relationship,

or process.a. Task conflict relates to the content and goals of the work.b. Relationship conflict focuses on interpersonal relationships.c. Process conflict is about how the work gets done.


545


2. Studies demonstrate that relationship conflicts, at least in work settings, are almost always dysfunctional. a. Why? It appears that the friction and interpersonal hostilities inherent in

relationship conflicts increase personality clashes and decrease mutual understanding, which hinders the completion of organizational tasks.

3. Of the three types, relationship conflicts also appear to be the most psychologically exhausting to individuals.

4. While scholars agree that relationship conflict is dysfunctional, there is considerably less agreement as to whether task and process conflicts are functional. a. Early research suggested that task conflict within groups was associated

with higher group performance, but a recent review of 116 studies found that task conflict was essentially unrelated to group performance.

b. However, there were factors that could create a relationship between conflict and performance.

c. One such factor was whether the conflict included top management or occurred lower in the organization.

d. Task conflict among top management teams was positively associated with their performance, whereas conflict lower in the organization was negatively associated with group performance.

e. This review also found that it mattered whether other types of conflict were occurring at the same time.

f. If task and relationship conflict occurred together, task conflict was more likely negative, whereas if task conflict occurred by itself, it more likely was positive.

5. Finally, some scholars have argued that the strength of conflict is important—if task conflict is very low, people aren’t really engaged or addressing the important issues. a. If task conflict is too high, however, infighting will quickly degenerate

into personality conflict. b. According to this view, moderate levels of task conflict are optimal.

i. Supporting this argument, one study in China found that moderate levels of task conflict in the early development stage increased creativity in groups, but high levels decreased team performance.

6. Finally, the personalities of the teams appear to matter. a. A recent study demonstrated that teams made up of individuals who are,

on average, high in openness and emotional stability are better able to turn task conflict into increased group performance.

b. The reason may be that open and emotionally stable teams can put task conflict in perspective and focus on how the variance in ideas can help solve the problem, rather than letting it degenerate into relationship conflicts.

7. What about process conflict? Researchers found that process conflicts revolve around delegation and roles. Conflicts over delegation often revolve around shirking, and conflicts over roles can leave some group members feeling marginalized.


546


8. Thus, process conflicts often become highly personalized and quickly devolve into relationship conflicts. a. It’s also true, of course, that arguing about how to do something takes time

away from actually doing it. We’re all been part of groups in which the arguments and debates about roles and responsibilities seem to go nowhere.

B. Loci of Conflict1. Another way to understand conflict is to consider its locus, or where the

conflict occurs. 2. Here, too, there are three basic types:

a. Dyadic conflict is conflict between two people. b. Intragroup conflict occurs within a group or team. c. Intergroup conflict is conflict between groups or teams.

3. Nearly all the literature on task, relationship, and process conflict considers intragroup conflict (within the group).

4. That makes sense given that groups and teams often exist only to perform a particular task. However, it doesn’t necessarily tell us about the other loci of conflict.

5. Another intriguing question about loci is whether conflicts interact or buffer one another.a. Intense intergroup conflict can be quite stressful to group members and

might well affect the way they interact.6. Thus, understanding functional and dysfunctional conflict requires not only

that we identify the type of conflict; we also need to know where it occurs. 7. It’s possible that while the concepts of task, relationship, and process conflict

are useful in understanding intragroup or even dyadic conflict, they are less useful in explaining the effects of intergroup conflict.

8. In sum, the traditional view that all conflict should be eliminated is short-sighted. a. The interactionist view that conflict can stimulate active discussion

without spilling over into negative, disruptive emotions is incomplete.b. Thinking about conflict in terms of type and locus helps us realize that it is

probably inevitable in most organizations, and when it does occur, we can attempt to make it as productive as possible.

III. The Conflict Process A. Stage I: Potential Opposition or Incompatibility (Exhibit 14-1)

1. Communicationa. Communication as a source of conflict represents those opposing forces

that arise from semantic difficulties, misunderstandings, and “noise” in the communication channels.

b. Differing word connotations, jargon, insufficient exchange of information, and noise in the communication channel are all barriers to communication and potential antecedents to conflict.

c. The potential for conflict increases when either too little or too much communication takes place.


547


d. Communication is functional up to a point, after which it is possible to over communicate, increasing the potential for conflict.

2. Structurea. The term structure includes variables such as size, degree of

specialization, jurisdictional clarity, member-goal compatibility, leadership styles, reward systems, and the degree of dependence.

b. Size and specialization act as forces to stimulate conflict. i. The larger the group and more specialized its activities, the greater the

likelihood of conflict. ii. The potential for conflict is greatest where group members are younger

and turnover is high. c. The greater the ambiguity in responsibility for actions lies, the greater the

potential for conflict. d. The diversity of goals among groups is a major source of conflict. e. When groups within an organization seek diverse ends, some of which are

inherently at odds, opportunities for conflict increase.f. Reward systems, too, create conflict when one member’s gain is at

another’s expense. g. Finally, if a group is dependent on another group, opposing forces are

stimulated. 3. Personal variables—include personality, emotions, and values.

a. People high in the personality traits of disagreeableness, neuroticism, or self-monitoring are prone to tangle with other people more often, and to react poorly when conflicts occur.

b. Emotions can also cause conflict even when they are not directed at others.

B. Stage II: Cognition and Personalization1. Antecedent conditions lead to conflict only when the parties are affected by

and aware of it. 2. However, because a disagreement is a perceived conflict does not mean it is

personalized. 3. Conflict is personalized when it is felt and when individuals become

emotionally involved. 4. This stage is where conflict issues tend to be defined and this definition

delineates the possible settlements. 5. Second, emotions play a major role in shaping perceptions. 6. Negative emotions produce oversimplification of issues, reductions in trust,

and negative interpretations of the other party’s behavior.7. Positive feelings increase the tendency to see potential relationships among

the elements of a problem, to take a broader view of the situation, and to develop more innovative solutions.

C. Stage III: Intentions 1. Intentions are decisions to act in a given way.

a. Why are intentions separated out as a distinct stage? Merely one party attributing the wrong intentions to the other escalates a lot of conflicts.


548


b. One author’s effort to identify the primary conflict-handling intentions, represented in Exhibit 14–2, is along two dimensions:i. Cooperativeness—the degree to which one party attempts to satisfy

the other party’s concerns.ii. Assertiveness—the degree to which one party attempts to satisfy his

or her own concerns.2. Five conflict-handling intentions can be identified: competing, collaborating,

avoiding, accommodating, and compromising.a. Competing

i. When one person seeks to satisfy his or her own interests, regardless of the impact on the other parties to the conflict.

b. Collaborating i. When the parties to conflict each desire to fully satisfy the concerns of

all parties. The intention is to solve the problem by clarifying differences rather than by accommodating.

c. Avoidingi. A person may recognize that a conflict exists and want to withdraw

from it or suppress it. d. Accommodating

i. When one party seeks to appease an opponent, that party is willing to be self-sacrificing.

e. Compromising i. When each party to the conflict seeks to give up something, sharing

occurs, resulting in a compromised outcome. There is no clear winner or loser, and the solution provides incomplete satisfaction of both parties’ concerns.

3. Intentions are not always fixed. a. They might change because of reconceptualization or because of an

emotional reaction.b. However, individuals have preferences among the five conflict-handling

intentions.c. We can predict a person’s intentions rather well from a combination of

intellectual and personality characteristics. D. Stage IV: Behavior (Exhibit 14-3)

1. Stage IV is where conflicts become visible. The behavior stage includes the statements, actions, and reactions made by the conflicting parties. These conflict behaviors are usually overt attempts to implement each party’s intentions.

2. Stage IV is a dynamic process of interaction; conflicts exist somewhere along a continuum.

3. At the lower part of the continuum, conflicts are characterized by subtle, indirect, and highly controlled forms of tension.

4. Conflict intensities escalate as they move upward along the continuum until they become highly destructive.

5. If a conflict is dysfunctional, what can the parties do to de-escalate it? Or, conversely, what options exist if conflict is too low and needs to be increased?


549


a. This brings us to techniques of conflict management. b. Exhibit 14-4 lists the major resolution and stimulation techniques that

allow managers to control conflict levels. c. We have already described several as conflict-handling intentions. d. Under ideal conditions, a person’s intentions should translate into

comparable behaviors.E. Stage V: Outcomes

1. Outcomes may be functional—improving group performance, or dysfunctional in hindering it. (Exhibit 14-1)

2. Functional outcomesa. How might conflict act as a force to increase group performance?

i. Conflict is constructive when it: (a) Improves the quality of decisions.(b) Stimulates creativity and innovation. (c) Encourages interest and curiosity. (d) Provides the medium through which problems can be aired and

tensions released. (e) Fosters an environment of self-evaluation and change.

b. The evidence suggests that conflict can improve the quality of decision making. i. Conflict is an antidote for groupthink. ii. Conflict challenges the status quo, furthers the creation of new ideas,

promotes reassessment of group goals and activities, and increases the probability that the group will respond to change.

c. Research studies in diverse settings confirm the functionality of discussion. i. Team members with greater differences in work styles and experience

also tend to share more information with one another. d. These observations lead us to predict benefits to organizations from the

increasing cultural diversity of the workforce. i. And that’s what the evidence indicates, under most conditions. ii. Heterogeneity among group and organization members can increase

creativity, improve the quality of decisions, and facilitate change by enhancing member flexibility.

iii. Researchers compared decision making groups composed of all-Caucasian individuals with groups that also contained members from Asian, Hispanic, and Black ethnic groups.

iv. The ethnically diverse groups produced more effective and more feasible ideas, and the unique ideas they generated tended to be of higher quality than the unique ideas produced by the all-Caucasian group.

3. Dysfunctional outcomesa. The destructive consequences of conflict on the performance of a group or

an organization are generally well known. i. Uncontrolled opposition breeds discontent, which acts to dissolve

common ties and eventually leads to the destruction of the group.


550


b. A substantial body of literature documents how dysfunctional conflicts can reduce group effectiveness. i. Among the more undesirable consequences are hampered

communication, reductions in group cohesiveness, and subordination of group goals to the primacy of infighting among members.

ii. All forms of conflict—even the functional varieties—appear to reduce group member satisfaction and reduce trust.

iii. When active discussions turn into open conflicts between members, information sharing between members has been shown to decrease significantly.

iv. At the extreme, conflict can bring group functioning to a halt and threaten the group’s survival.

v. We noted that diversity can usually improve group performance and decision making. (a) However, if differences of opinion open up along demographic

fault lines, harmful conflicts result and information sharing decreases.

(b) For example, if differences of opinion in a gender-diverse team line up so that men all hold one opinion and women hold another, group members tend to stop listening to one another.

(c) They fall into in-group favoritism and won’t take the other side’s point of view into consideration.

(d) Managers in this situation need to pay special attention to these fault lines and emphasize the shared goals of the team.

4. Managing functional conflicta. If managers recognize that in some situations conflict can be beneficial,

what can they do to manage conflict effectively in their organizations?i. One of the keys to minimizing counterproductive conflicts is

recognizing when there really is a disagreement. ii. Many apparent conflicts are due to people using different language to

discuss the same general course of action. (a) For example, someone in marketing might focus on "distribution

problems,” while someone from operations will talk about “supply chain management” to describe essentially the same issue.

iii. Successful conflict management recognizes these different approaches and attempts to resolve them by encouraging open, frank discussion focused on interests rather than issues (we’ll have more to say about this when we contrast distributive and integrative bargaining styles).

iv. Another approach is to have opposing groups pick parts of the solution that are most important to them and then focus on how each side can get its top needs satisfied.

v. Neither side may get exactly what it wants, but both sides will get the most important parts of its agenda.

b. Groups that resolve conflicts successfully discuss differences of opinion openly and are prepared to manage conflict when it arises.


551


i. The most disruptive conflicts are those that are never addressed directly. An open discussion makes it much easier to develop a shared perception of the problems at hand; it also allows groups to work toward a mutually acceptable solution.

ii. Managers need to emphasize shared interests in resolving conflicts, so groups that disagree with one another don’t become too entrenched in their points of view and start to take the conflicts personally.

iii. Groups with cooperative conflict styles and a strong underlying identification to the overall group goals are more effective than groups with a more competitive style.

c. Differences across countries in conflict resolution strategies may be based on collectivistic tendencies and motives. i. Collectivist cultures see people as deeply embedded in social

situations, whereas individualist cultures see them as autonomous.ii. As a result, collectivists are more likely to seek to preserve

relationships and promote the good of the group as a whole. iii. They will avoid direct expression of conflicts, preferring indirect

methods for resolving differences of opinion. iv. Collectivists may also be more interested in demonstrations of concern

and working through third parties to resolve disputes, whereas individualists will be more likely to confront differences of opinion directly and openly.

v. Some research does support this theory. Compared to collectivist Japanese negotiators, their more individualist U.S. counterparts are more likely to see offers from their counterparts as unfair and to reject them.

vi. Another study revealed that whereas U.S. managers were more likely to use competing tactics in the face of conflicts, compromising and avoiding are the most preferred methods of conflict management in China.

vii. Interview data, however, suggests top management teams in Chinese high-technology firms prefer collaboration even more than compromising and avoiding.

IV. NegotiationA. Introduction

1. Negotiation is a process in which two or more parties exchange goods or services and attempt to agree upon the exchange rate for them. We use the terms negotiation and bargaining interchangeably.

2. Although we commonly think of the outcomes of negotiation in one-shot economic terms, every negotiation in organizations also affects the relationship between the negotiators and the way the negotiators feel about themselves.

3. Depending on how much the parties are going to interact with one another, sometimes maintaining the social relationship and behaving ethically will be just as important as achieving an immediate outcome of bargaining.

4. Note that we use the terms negotiation and bargaining interchangeably.


552


B. Bargaining Strategies 1. Two general approaches to negotiation: (Exhibit 14-5)

a. Distributive bargainingb. Integrative bargaining

2. Distributive bargaininga. An example of distributive bargaining is buying a car.

i. You go out to see the car. It is great and you want it. ii. The owner tells you the asking price. You do not want to pay that

much. iii. The two of you then negotiate over the price. iv. Its most identifying feature is that it operates under zero-sum

conditions. b. The essence of distributive bargaining is negotiating over who gets what

share of a fixed pie. (Exhibit 14-6)i. By fixed pie, we mean a set amount of goods or services to be divvied

up. ii. When the pie is fixed, or the parties believe it is, they tend to bargain

distributively.c. The most widely cited example of distributive bargaining is in labor-

management negotiations over wages. i. The essence of distributive bargaining is depicted in Exhibit 14–6.

(a) Parties A and B represent two negotiators. (b) Each has a target point that defines what he or she would like to

achieve. (c) Each also has a resistance point, which marks the lowest outcome

that is acceptable. (d) The area between these two points makes up each one’s aspiration

range. (e) As long as there is some overlap between A and B’s aspiration

ranges, there exists a settlement range where each one’s aspirations can be met.

d. When engaged in distributive bargaining, one of the best things you can do is make the first offer, and make it an aggressive one. i. Making the first offer shows power; individuals in power are much

more likely to make initial offers, speak first at meetings, and thereby gain the advantage.

ii. Another reason, the anchoring bias, was mentioned in Chapter 6. People tend to fixate on initial information.

iii. A savvy negotiator sets an anchor with the initial offer, and scores of negotiation studies show that such anchors greatly favor the person who sets it.

e. Another distributive bargaining tactic is revealing a deadline. i. Negotiators who reveal deadlines speed concessions from their

negotiating counterparts, making them reconsider their position.ii. And although negotiators don’t think this tactic works, in reality,

negotiators who reveal deadlines do better.


553


3. Integrative bargaininga. In contrast to distributive bargaining, integrative bargaining operates

under the assumption that one or more of the possible settlements can create a win-win solution.

b. Both parties must be engaged for it to work.c. In terms of intra-organizational behavior, all things being equal,

integrative bargaining is preferable to distributive bargaining. i. Because integrative bargaining builds long-term relationships and

facilitates working together in the future, it bonds negotiators and allows each to leave the bargaining table feeling victorious.

ii. Distributive bargaining, on the other hand, leaves one party a loser. It tends to build animosities and deepens divisions.

d. Why do we not see more integrative bargaining in organizations? The answer lies in the conditions necessary for this type of negotiation to succeed. i. Parties who are open with information and candid about their

concerns.ii. Sensitivity by both parties to the other’s needs.iii. The ability to trust one another.iv. A willingness by both parties to maintain flexibility.

e. There are ways to achieve more integrative outcomes. i. Individuals who bargain in teams reach more integrative agreements

than those who bargain individually because more ideas are generated when more people are at the bargaining table. So, try bargaining in teams.

ii. Another way to achieve higher joint-gain settlements is to put more issues on the table. (a) The more negotiable issues introduced into a negotiation, the more

opportunity for “logrolling,” where issues are traded off because people have different preferences.

(b) This creates better outcomes for each side than if they negotiated each issue individually.

iii. Focus also on the underlying interests of both sides rather than on issues. (a) In other words, it is better to concentrate on why an employee

wants a raise rather than focusing just on the raise amount—some unseen potential for integrative outcomes may arise if both sides concentrate on what they really want rather than on the specific items they’re bargaining over.

(b) Typically, it’s easier to concentrate on underlying interests when parties to a negotiation are focused on broad, overall goals rather than on immediate outcomes of a specific decision.

iv. Negotiations that occur when both parties are focused on learning and understanding the other side tend to also yield higher joint outcomes than those in which parties are more interested in their individual bottom-line outcomes.


554


4. Compromise might be your worst enemy in negotiating a win-win agreement. i. The reason is that compromising reduces the pressure to bargain

integratively. ii. After all, if you or your opponent caves in easily, it doesn’t require

anyone to be creative to reach a settlement. Thus, people end up settling for less than they could have obtained if they had been forced to consider the other party’s interests, trade off issues, and be creative.

C. The Negotiation Process (Exhibit 14-7)1. Preparation and Planning

a. Do your homework. i. What is the nature of the conflict? ii. What is the history leading up to this negotiation? iii. Who is involved, and what are their perceptions of the conflict? iv. What do you want from the negotiation? v. What are your goals?

b. You also want to assess what you think are the other party’s goals. c. When you can anticipate your opponent’s position, you are better

equipped to counter his or her arguments with the facts and figures that support your position.

d. Relationships will change as a result of a negotiation, so that’s another outcome to take into consideration. i. If you could “win” a negotiation but push the other side into

resentment or animosity, it might be wiser to pursue a more compromising style.

ii. If preserving the relationship will make you seem weak and easily exploited, you may want to consider a more aggressive style.

iii. As an example of how the tone of a relationship set in negotiations matters, consider that people who feel good about the process of a job offer negotiation are more satisfied with their jobs and less likely to turn over a year later regardless of their actual outcomes from these negotiations.

e. Once you have gathered your information, use it to develop a strategy. i. Determine your and the other side’s Best Alternative to a Negotiated

Agreement (BATNA). ii. Your BATNA determines the lowest value acceptable to you for a

negotiated agreement. iii. Any offer you receive that is higher than your BATNA is better than

an impasse. 2. Definition of ground rules

a. Who will do the negotiating? Where will it take place? What time constraints, if any, will apply?

b. To what issues will negotiation be limited? Will there be a specific procedure to follow if an impasse is reached?

c. During this phase, the parties will also exchange their initial proposals or demands.


555


3. Clarification and justification a. When initial positions have been exchanged, explain, amplify, clarify,

bolster, and justify your original demands. b. This need not be confrontational. c. You might want to provide the other party with any documentation that

helps support your position. 4. Bargaining and problem solving

a. The essence of the negotiation process is the actual give-and-take in trying to hash out an agreement.

b. Concessions will undoubtedly need to be made by both parties. 5. Closure and implementation

a. The final step—formalizing the agreement that has been worked out and developing any procedures that are necessary for implementation and monitoring

b. Major negotiations will require hammering out the specifics in a formal contract.

c. For most cases, however, closure of the negotiation process is nothing more formal than a handshake.

D. Individual Differences in Negotiation Effectiveness1. Personality traits in negotiation

a. Can you predict an opponent’s negotiating tactics if you know something about his/her personality? The evidence says “sort of.”

b. The evidence suggests that overall agreeableness is weakly related to negotiation outcomes. Why is this the case?i. It appears that the degree to which agreeableness, and personality

more generally, affects negotiation outcomes depends on the situation. ii. The importance of being extraverted in negotiations, for example, will

very much depend on how the other party reacts to someone who is assertive and enthusiastic.

iii. A recent study suggested that the type of negotiations matter as well. In this study, agreeable individuals reacted more positively and felt less stress (measured by their cortisol levels) in integrative negotiations than in distributive ones. (a) Low levels of stress, in turn, made for more effective negotiation

outcomes.c. Research also suggests intelligence predicts negotiation effectiveness, but,

as with personality, the effects aren’t especially strong.i. In a sense, these weak links are good news because they mean you’re

not severely disadvantaged, even if you’re an agreeable extrovert, when it comes time to negotiate.

ii. We all can learn to be better negotiators. iii. In fact, people who think so are more likely to do well in negotiations

because they persist in their efforts even in the face of temporary setbacks.


556


2. Moods/emotions in negotiationa. Moods and emotions influence negotiation, but the way they do depends

on the type of negotiation. i. It appears that negotiators in a position of power or equal status who

show anger negotiate better outcomes because their anger induces concessions from their opponents.

b. Anxiety also appears to have an impact on negotiation. i. For example, one study found that individuals who experienced more

anxiety about a negotiation used more deceptions in dealing with others.

c. Another study found that anxious negotiators expect lower outcomes from negotiations, respond to offers more quickly, and exit the bargaining process more quickly, which leads them to obtain worse outcomes.

3. Culture in negotiations a. Do people from different cultures negotiate differently? The simple

answer is the obvious one: yes, they do.b. First, it appears that people generally negotiate more effectively within

cultures than between them. i. For example, a Colombian is apt to do better negotiating with a

Colombian than with a Sri Lankan. c. Second, it appears that in cross-cultural negotiations, it is especially

important that the negotiators be high in openness. d. Finally, because emotions are culturally sensitive, negotiators need to be

especially aware of the emotional dynamics in cross-cultural negotiation. 4. Gender differences in negotiations

a. Men and women negotiate differently and those differences affect outcomes.

b. A popular stereotype is that women are more cooperative, pleasant, and relationship-oriented in negotiations than are men.

c. There is some merit to this. d. Men tend to place a higher value on status, power, and recognition,

whereas women tend to place a higher value on compassion and altruism. e. Moreover, women do tend to value relationship outcomes more than men,

and men tend to value economic outcomes more than women. f. These differences affect both negotiation behavior and negotiation

outcomes. i. Compared to men, women tend to behave in a less assertive, less self-

interested, and more accommodating manner. ii. However, the disparity goes even further than that. Because of the way

women approach negotiation, other negotiators seek to exploit female negotiators by, for example, making lower salary offers.

g. So what can be done to change this troublesome state of affairs? i. First, organizational culture plays a role here. ii. If an organization, even unwittingly, encourages a predominantly

competitive model for negotiators, this will tend to increase gender-stereotypic behaviors (men negotiating competitively, women


557


negotiating cooperatively), and it will also increase backlash when women go against stereotype.

iii. Second, at an individual level, women cannot directly control male stereotypes of women. Fortunately, such stereotypes are fading. However, women can control their own negotiating behavior.

V. Third-Party NegotiationsA. When individuals or group representatives reach a stalemate and are unable to

resolve their differences through direct negotiations, they may turn to a third party.

B. A mediator is a neutral third party who facilitates a negotiated solution by using reasoning and persuasion, suggesting alternatives, and the like. 1. They are widely used in labor-management negotiations and in civil court

disputes. 2. Their settlement rate is approximately 60 percent, with negotiator satisfaction

at about 75 percent. 3. The key to success—the conflicting parties must be motivated to bargain and

resolve their conflict, intensity cannot be too high, and the mediator must be perceived as neutral and non-coercive.

C. An arbitrator is a third party with the authority to dictate an agreement. 1. It can be voluntary (requested) or compulsory (forced on the parties by law or

contract). 2. The big plus of arbitration over mediation is that it always results in a

settlement. D. A conciliator is a trusted third party who provides an informal communication

link among parties. 1. This role was made famous by Robert Duval in the first Godfather film. 2. Comparing its effectiveness to mediation has proven difficult. 3. Conciliators engage in fact finding, interpreting messages, and persuading

disputants to develop agreements. VI. Summary and Implications for Managers




D. An optimal level is one that prevents stagnation, stimulates creativity, allows tensions to be released, and initiates the seeds of change without being disruptive or preventing coordination of activities. Specific implications for managers are below:1. As Exhibit 14-8 suggests, choose an authoritarian management style in

emergencies, when unpopular actions need to be implemented (such as cost cutting, enforcement of unpopular rules, discipline), and when the issue is vital to the organization’s welfare. Be certain to communicate your logic when possible to make certain employees remain engaged and productive.


558








Myth or Science? “Teams Negotiate Better than Individuals in

Collectivistic Cultures”

This exercise contributes to: Learning Objectives: Apply the five steps of the negotiation process; Show how individual differences influence negotiationsLearning Outcome: Describe the nature of conflict and the negotiation processAACSB: Written and oral communication; Diverse and multicultural work environments; Reflective thinking

According to a recent study, this statement appears to be false.


559


In general, the literature has suggested that teams negotiate more effectively than individuals negotiating alone. Some evidence indicates that team negotiations create more ambitious goals, and that teams communicate more with each other than individual negotiators do.

Common sense suggests that if this is indeed the case, it is especially true in collectivistic cultures, where individuals are more likely to think of collective goals and be more comfortable working in teams. A recent study of the negotiation of teams in the United States and in Taiwan, however, suggests that this common sense is wrong. The researchers conducted two studies comparing two-person teams with individual negotiators. They defined negotiating effectiveness as the degree to which the negotiation produced an optimal outcome for both sides. U.S. teams did better than solo individuals in both studies. In Taiwan, solo individuals did better than teams.

Why did this happen? The researchers determined that in Taiwan norms respecting harmony already exist, and negotiating in teams only amplifies that tendency. This poses a problem because when norms for cooperation are exceptionally high, teams “satisfice” to avoid conflict. In contrast, since because the United States is individualistic, solo teams may only amplify their tendencies to focus solely on their own interests, which makes reaching integrative solutions harder.

Overall, these findings suggest that negotiating individually works best in collectivistic cultures, and negotiating in teams works best in individualistic cultures.

Sources: Based on M. J. Gelfand, J. Brett, B. C. Gunia, L. Imai, T. Huang, et al., “Toward a Culture-by-Context Perspective on Negotiation: Negotiating Teams in the United States and Taiwan,” Journal of Applied Psychology 98 (2013), pp. 504–-513; and A. Graf, S. T. Koeszegi, and E.-M. Pesendorfer, “Electronic Negotiations in Intercultural Interfirm Relationships,” Journal of Managerial Psychology 25 (2010), pp. 495–-512.

Class Exercise

1. Ask students to read the paper at http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/cultural-services/articles/cross-cultural-negotiation.html.

2. Divide the class into task teams of three to five students each.3. Have each task team select a country in which to create a joint venture with a

local company.4. Each team should create a plan for the upcoming negotiations for the joint

venture.5. The plan should include how the team perceives the negotiation issues. The paper

should be addressed to meet its joint venture objective.


560

http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/cultural-services/articles/cross-cultural-negotiation.html

http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/cultural-services/articles/cross-cultural-negotiation.html


glOBalization!Trust Is an Issue

This exercise contributes to: Learning Objectives: Apply the five steps of the negotiation process; Show how individual differences influence negotiationsLearning Outcome: Describe the nature of conflict and the negotiation processAACSB: Written and oral communication; Diverse and multicultural work environments; Reflective thinking

Research has shown that one of the greatest barriers in negotiating across cultures is trust. People in one culture are generally less trusting of those in another, including when negotiating.

One study of Indian and U.S. negotiators found, for example, that respondents reported having less trust in their cross-culture negotiation counterparts. These lower levels of trust were associated with lower discovery of common interests between parties, which occurred because cross-culture negotiators were less willing to disclose and solicit information.

Another study found that both U.S. and Chinese negotiators tended to have an in-group bias, which led them to favor negotiating partners from their own cultures. For Chinese negotiators, this was particularly true when accountability requirements were high.

So what can we do to establish trust and reduce in-group cultural favoritism? The first and foremost step is to recognize that it is critical to build trust: try to get to know your counter-part, begin with small wins, and continue to communicate your interests and check your understanding of your counterpart’s interests. The challenges of cross-cultural negotiation mean that the tactics we’ve described in this chapter are even more important to successful negotiations.

Sources: Based on B. Gunia, J. Brett, and A. Nandkeolyar, “In Global Negotiations, It’s All About Trust,” Harvard Business Review (December 2012), p. 26; W. Liu, R. Friedman, and Y. Hong, “Culture and Accountability in Negotiation: Recognizing the Importance of In-Group Relations,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 117 (2012), pp. 221–-234; and B. C. Gunia, J. M. Brett, A. K. Nandkeolyar, and D. Kamdar, “Paying a Price: Culture, Trust, and Negotiation Consequences,” Journal of Applied Psychology 96, no. 4 (2010), pp. 774–789.

Class Exercise

1. Ask students to watch the video on the development of business in India and China at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8liTZBhDQ3o .

2. Have students break into discussion groups to talk about the differences in the two countries and how those differences reflect each culture.

3. What are the implications of these differences for business people in each country? How might those differences be reflected in negotiating styles?


561

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8liTZBhDQ3o


4. Have the students write a short white paper defining the concepts they would have to address if they were part of a negotiating team in talks with a Chinese manufacturer, as compared to a manufacturer from India.

Teaching Notes

This exercise is applicable to face-to-face classes or synchronous online classes such as BlackBoard 9.1, Breeze, WIMBA, and Second Life Virtual Classrooms. See http://www.baclass.panam.edu/imob/SecondLife for more information.

An Ethical ChoiceUsing Empathy to Negotiate More Ethically

This exercise contributes to: Learning Objectives: Apply the five steps of the negotiation process; Show how individual differences influence negotiationsLearning Outcome: Describe the nature of conflict and the negotiation processAACSB: Written and oral communication; Ethical understanding and reasoning; Reflective thinking

You may have noticed that much of our advice for negotiating effectively depends on understanding the perspective and goals of the person with whom you are negotiating. Preparing checklists of your negotiation partner’s interests, likely tactics, and BATNA have all been shown to improve negotiation outcomes. Can these steps make you a more ethical negotiator as well? Studies suggest that it might.

Researchers asked respondents to indicate how much they tended to think about other people’s feelings and emotions and to describe the types of tactics they engaged in during a negotiation exercise. More empathetic individuals consistently engaged in fewer unethical negotiation behaviors like making false promises and manipulating information, and emotions. To put this in terms familiar to you from personality research, it appears that individuals who are higher in agreeableness will be more ethical negotiators.

When considering how to improve your ethical negotiation behavior, follow these guidelines:1. Try to understand your negotiation partner’s perspective, not just by understanding

cognitively what the other person wants, but by empathizing with the emotional reaction he or she will have to the possible outcomes.

2. Be aware of your own emotions, because many moral reactions are fundamentally emotional. One study found that engaging in unethical negotiation strategies increased feelings of guilt, so by extension, feeling guilty in a negotiation may mean you are engaging in behavior you’ll regret later.

3. Beware of empathizing so much that you work against your own interests. Just because you try to understand the motives and emotional reactions of the other side


562

http://www.baclass.panam.edu/imob/SecondLife


does not mean you have to assume the other person is going to be honest and fair in return. So be on guard.

Sources: Based on T. R. Cohen, “Moral Emotions and Unethical Bargaining: The Differential Effects of Empathy and Perspective Taking in Deterring Deceitful Negotiation,” Journal of Business Ethics 94, no. 4 (2010), pp. 569–579; and R. Volkema, D. Fleck, and A. Hofmeister, “Predicting Competitive-Unethical Negotiating Behavior and Its Consequences,” Negotiation Journal 26, no. 3 (2010), pp. 263–286.

Class Exercise

1. Divide the class into teams of two. 2. Each team is to role play a negotiation on the rental of a venue for a fraternity

party concert (one student’s role) and the rental ballroom owner (the other student’s role). The ballroom is privately owned and has, in the past, charged renters by the person attending or a flat rate. In addition, in the past, the rental owner required refreshments and beverages to be purchased through his organization. And the owner requires security throughout the evening in the parking lot and inside to ensure no conflicts occur.

3. The two should try to use empathy as a basis for the negotiations. See the guide at http://www.negotiationinstitute.com/column/empathy-critical-skill-use-negotiations .

4. Have the class observe the negotiations of four of the teams. Rate the teams on improvement of the use of empathy from the first group to the last.

Teaching Notes


Point/CounterpointPro Sports Strikes Are Caused by Greedy Owners

This exercise contributes to: Learning Objectives: Show how individual differences influence negotiations; Assess the role of third party negotiations Learning Outcome: Describe the nature of conflict and the negotiation processAACSB: Written and oral communication; Reflective thinking

Point

I’m as sick as anyone of the constant strikes, lockouts, and back-and-forth negotiations between sports teams and the players’ unions. Of the major pro sports leagues, Major League Baseball (MLB) is the only one not to have had a strike or lockout since 2010 –


563


http://www.negotiationinstitute.com/column/empathy-critical-skill-use-negotiations

http://www.negotiationinstitute.com/column/empathy-critical-skill-use-negotiations


and it has already had 8 eight in its history. You’ve got to wonder why this keeps happening. Here’s why: owners’ greed knows no limit.

In nearly every recent strike or lockout, the main issue was money and how to divide it.

When the National Hockey League (NHL) locked out the players during the 2012–2013 season, the owners were the instigators. They wanted to reduce the players’ share of hockey revenues. They wanted to eliminate salary arbitration. They wanted to introduce term limits to contracts. They wanted to change free-agency rules and eliminate signing bonuses. On a philosophical level, some of these proposals are interesting because they reveal that owners want to restrict competition when it suits them and increase it when it benefits them.

This summer, while the owners were whining about the unfairness of long-term contracts, the Minnesota Wild’s owner Craig Leipold, a noted negotiations hawk, signed Zach Parise and Ryan Suter to identical 13-year, $98 million contracts. Contracts like these suggest that owners want the players’ union to save them from themselves.

Perhaps some of this would make sense if the owners were losing money hand over fist, but that is hardly the case. The NHL is now a $3.3 billion business, and it continues to grow. The owners aren’t hurting, either. Most are millionaires many times over. Los Angeles Kings owner Philip Anschutz is reported to have a net worth of $7 billion.

Forbes reports the average NFL team is now worth over more than $1.1 billion and made $41 million last year. Even low revenue and poorly run teams make money. Take the Jacksonville Jaguars. Wayne Weaver paid $208 million for the team in 1993. It has never made it to the Super Bowl and is almost always an also-ran in its division. Did the team’s ineffectiveness really cost Weaver? He sold the club for $770 million in 2012.

In essence, what we have are rich owners trying to negotiate rules that keep them from competing with one another for players. It’s a bald-faced and hypocritical attempt to use their own kind of union to negotiate favorable agreements, all the while criticizing the players’ unions.

Counterpoint

Major league owners are an easy target. But they have the most to lose from work stoppages. It’s the players and their unions who push the envelope.

It’s true that most major league players are well rewarded for their exceptional talents and the risks they take. It’s also true that owners who are able to invest in teams are wealthy—investors usually are. But the fault for disputes lies with spoiled players—and the union leaders who burnish their credentials and garner the limelight by fanning the flames of discontent.


564


On this latter point, give all the credit in the world to the union negotiators (paid millions themselves), who do nothing if not hawk publicity and use hardball negotiating tactics. Take the NHL players’ union boss Donald Fehr. For a recent “negotiation” set to begin at 10 A.M., he arrived at 11:15. At exactly 12:00, he announced he had a lunch meeting uptown and left.

As for the players, pro athletes are entitled almost by definition. For example, one recently retired NFL player and union representative, Chester Pitts, was commenting about how he had to settle for an $85,000 Mercedes instead of a $250,000 car. Well, we all have to make sacrifices. One rookie, Jets’ quarterback Geno Smith, fired his agent after signing “only” a four-year contract for roughly $4.99 million. Smith called the contract “hard to stomach.” I see a future in the player’s union for this guy.

Do we really need labor unions for workers whose average salaries are $1,900,000 (NFL), $2,400,000 (NHL), $3,310,000 (MLB), and $5,150,000 (NBA)? NHL clubs spent 76 percent of their gross revenues on players’ salaries and collectively lost $273 million the year before the most recent lockout. It’s not much better in the NBA, where many teams lose money. Take the Dallas Mavericks, who have rarely made money once since 2002, despite playing in the fourth most populous metro area and winning the NBA title in 2012.

It’s easy to argue that major league sports have an unusual number of labor disputes, but that’s not necessarily accurate. Did you hear about the 2013 Turkish Airlines strike, or the worldwide strikes in the fast food industry in 2013? Sports strikes interest us, but we shouldn’t fall into the trap of blaming these on the owners.

Sources: J. Feinstein, “In the NHL Lockout, the Owners Have It All Wrong,” Washington Post (December 25, 2012), downloaded May 29, 2013, from http://articles.washingtonpost.com/; R. Cimini, “Geno Smith's Maturity Questioned,” ESPN (May 3, 2013), downloaded May 3, 2013, from http://espn.go.com/; K. Campbell, “Thanks to Donald Fehr, NHL Negotiating against Itself...and Losing,” The Hockey News (December 29, 2012), downloaded May 29, 2013, from http://sports.yahoo.com/; and M. Ozanian, “Dallas Cowboys Lead NFL with $2.1 Billion Valuation,” Forbes (September 5, 2012), downloaded May 20, 2013, from http://www.forbes.com/.

Class Exercise

1. Divide the class into paired teams of three to five students each.2. Have one group in a pair take the Point side and the other the Counterpoint side.3. Have the groups prepare a debate (see

http://olc.spsd.sk.ca/de/pd/instr/strats/debates/QandA.pdf for guidance).4. Ask pairs to present debates before the class. 5. The class should vote on which side prevails in the debate.


565

http://olc.spsd.sk.ca/de/pd/instr/strats/debates/QandA.pdf


Questions for Review

14-1. What are the differences between the traditional and interactionist views of conflict?Answer: The traditionalist view of conflict is the belief that all conflict is harmful and must be avoided. The current view is the interactionist view of conflict or the belief that conflict is not only a positive force in a group but also that it is absolutely necessary for a group to perform effectively. Learning Objective: Differentiate between the traditional and interactionist views of conflict Learning Outcome: Describe the nature of conflict and the negotiation processAACSB: Reflective thinking

14-2. What are the three types of conflict and the three loci of conflict?Answer: The three types of conflict are:

1. Task conflict: conflict over content and goals of the work.2. Relationship conflict: conflict based on interpersonal relationships.3. Process conflict: conflict over how work gets done.

The three loci of conflict are:1. Dyadic conflict: conflict that occurs between two people. 2. Intragroup conflict: conflict that occurs within a group or team.3. Intergroup conflict: conflict between groups or teams.

Learning Objective: Describe the three types of conflict and the three loci of conflict Learning Outcome: Describe the nature of conflict and the negotiation processAACSB: Reflective thinking

14-3. What are the steps of the conflict process?Answer: Stage I: Potential opposition or incompatibility—The first step in the conflict process is the presence of conditions that create opportunities for conflict to arise. These conditions have been condensed into three general categories: communication, structure, and personal variables.Stage II: Cognition and personalization—The antecedent conditions can lead to conflict only when one or more of the parties are affected by, and aware of, the conflict. Just because a conflict is perceived does not mean that it is personalized. It is important because it is where conflict issues tend to be defined.Stage III: Intentions—Intentions are decisions to act in a given way. Exhibit 14–2 represents one author’s effort to identify the primary conflict-handling intentions. Two dimensions—cooperativeness and assertiveness. Five conflict-handling intentions can be identified: competing (assertive and uncooperative), collaborating (assertive and cooperative), avoiding (unassertive and uncooperative), accommodating (unassertive and cooperative), and compromising (midrange on both assertiveness and cooperativeness).Stage IV: Behavior—The behavior stage includes the statements, actions, and reactions made by the conflicting parties. These conflict behaviors are usually


566


overt attempts to implement each party’s intentions. Exhibit 14–3 provides a way of visualizing conflict behavior. Exhibit 14–4 lists the major resolution and stimulation techniques that allow managers to control conflict levels. Stage V: Outcomes—Outcomes may be functional in that the conflict results in an improvement in the group’s performance, or dysfunctional in that it hinders group performance. Conflict is constructive when it improves the quality of decisions, stimulates creativity and innovation, etc. Dysfunctional outcomes uncontrolled opposition breeds discontent, which acts to dissolve common ties, and eventually leads to the destruction of the group. Among the more undesirable consequences are a retarding of communication, reductions in group cohesiveness, and subordination of group goals to the primacy of infighting between members. Learning Objective: Outline the conflict processLearning Outcome: Describe the nature of conflict and the negotiation processAACSB: Reflective thinking

14-4. What are the differences between distributive and integrative bargaining?Answer: Distributive bargaining is negotiation that seeks to divide up a fixed amount of resources; a win-lose situation. Integrative bargaining is negotiation that seeks one or more settlements that can create a win-win solution. Exhibit 14-5 shows that these approaches to bargaining differ in their goal and motivation, focus, interests, information sharing and duration of relationship. Learning Objective: Contrast distributive and integrative bargaining Learning Outcome: Describe the nature of conflict and the negotiation processAACSB: Reflective thinking

14-5. What are the five steps in the negotiation process?Answer: Exhibit 14-7 shows a model of the negotiation process. It includes the preparation and planning, definition of ground rules, clarification and justification, bargaining and problem solving, and closure and implementation. Learning Objective: Apply the five steps of the negotiation processLearning Outcome: Describe the nature of conflict and the negotiation processAACSB: Reflective thinking

14-6. How do individual differences influence negotiations?Answer: Personality and gender can both influence negotiations. Personality traits like extroverts and agreeable people are weaker at distributive negotiation. In contrast, disagreeable introverts are best at this type of negotiation. Intelligence is also a weak indicator of bargaining. With gender, men and women negotiate the same way, but may experience different outcomes. Women and men take on gender stereotypes in negotiations such as tender and tough. In addition, women are less likely to negotiate. Learning Objective: Show how individual differences influence negotiations Learning Outcome: Describe the nature of conflict and the negotiation processAACSB: Reflective thinking


567


14-7. What are the roles and functions of third-party negotiations?Answer: There are four basic third-party roles: Mediator – a neutral third party who facilitates a negotiated solution by using reasoning, persuasion, and suggestions for alternatives.Arbitrator – a third party to a negotiation who has the authority to dictate an agreement.Conciliator – a trusted third party who provides an informal communication link between the negotiator and the opponent.Consultant – an impartial third party, skilled in conflict management, who attempts to facilitate creative problem solving through communication and analysis.Learning Objective: Assess the roles and functions of third-party negotiations Learning Outcome: Describe the nature of conflict and the negotiation processAACSB: Reflective thinking

Experiential ExerciseA Negotiation Role-Play

This exercise contributes to: Learning Objective: Apply the five steps of the negotiation processLearning Outcome: Describe the nature of conflict and the negotiation processAACSB: Reflective thinking

InstructionsThis role-play is designed to help students develop their negotiating skills. The class is to break into pairs. One person will play the role of Alex, the department supervisor. The other person will play C.J., Alex’s boss. Both participants should read The Situation and The Negotiation, listed below, and then their role only.

The Situation Alex and C.J. work for Nike in Portland, Oregon. Alex supervises a research laboratory. C.J. is the manager of research and development. Alex and C.J. are former college runners who have worked for Nike for more than six years. C.J. has been Alex’s boss for 2 years. One of Alex’s employees has greatly impressed Alex. This employee is Lisa Roland. Lisa was hired 11 months ago. She is 24 years old and holds a master’s degree in mechanical engineering. Her entry-level salary was $47,500 a year. She was told by Alex that, in accordance with corporation policy, she would receive an initial performance evaluation at 6 months and a comprehensive review after 1 year. Based on her performance record, Lisa was told she could expect a salary adjustment at the time of the 1-year evaluation.

Alex’s evaluation of Lisa after 6 months was very positive. Alex commented on the long hours Lisa was putting in, her cooperative spirit, the fact that others in the lab enjoyed


568


working with her, and that she was making an immediate positive impact on the project she had been assigned. Now that Lisa’s first anniversary is coming up, Alex has again reviewed Lisa’s performance. Alex thinks Lisa may be the best new person the R&D group has ever hired. After only a year, Alex has ranked Lisa as the number-three performer in a department of 11.

Salaries in the department vary greatly. Alex, for instance, has a basic salary of $86,000, plus eligibility for a bonus that might add another $7,000 to $12,000 a year. The salary range of the 11 department members is $48,400 to $76,350. The lowest salary is a recent hire with a bachelor’s degree in physics. The two people that Alex has rated above Lisa earn base salaries of $69,200 and $76,350. They’re both 27 years old and have been at Nike for three and four years, respectively. The median salary in Alex’s department is $64,960.

The Negotiation Alex has a meeting scheduled with C.J. to discuss Lisa’s performance review and salary adjustment. Take a couple of minutes to think through the facts in this exercise and to prepare a strategy. Then you have up to 15 minutes to conduct your negotiation. When your negotiation is complete, the class will compare the various strategies used and pair outcomes.

Alex’s Role You want to give Lisa a big raise. While she’s young, she has proven to be an excellent addition to the department. You don’t want to lose her. More importantly, she knows in general what other people in the department are earning and she thinks she is underpaid. The company typically gives 1-year raises of 5 percent, although 10 percent is not unusual, and 20 to 30 percent increases have been approved on occasion. You‘d like to get Lisa as large an increase as C. J. will approve.

C.J.’s Role All your supervisors typically try to squeeze you for as much money as they can for their people. You understand this because you did the same thing when you were a supervisor, but your boss wants to keep a lid on costs. He wants you to keep raises for recent hires generally in the 5-to-8 percent range. In fact, he has sent a memo to all managers and supervisors saying this. He also said that managers would be evaluated on their ability to maintain budgetary control. However, your boss is also concerned with equity and paying people what they’re worth. You feel assured that he will support any salary recommendation you make, as long as it can be justified. Your goal, consistent with cost reduction, is to keep salary increases as low as possible.

Teaching Notes

1. The process for running the exercise is self-explanatory.2. Consider assigning some pairs a distributive strategy and some an integrative

strategy. This will permit a comparison of results for discussion.


569


3. Consider your gender mix in the pairs, if you want to include a discussion of male/female negotiating strategies.

4. For the sake of time, this exercise can also be conducted as a “fish bowl” using only one pair of students and having the rest of the class observe.


Ethical DilemmaThe Lowball Applicant

This exercise contributes to: Learning Objective: Show how individual differences influence negotiationsLearning Outcome: Describe the nature of conflict and the negotiation processAACSB: Written and oral communication; Ethical understanding and reasoning; Reflective thinking

Consider this first-person account:

I am a human resource manager, so I interview people every day. Sometimes the managers in my company ask me to pre-screen candidates, which I do after discussing the job at length with the manager. I usually start the candidate screening with a few personality-job fit tests; then conduct an interview, following a list of job-specific questions the manager has given me; and finally discuss the job requirements, our company, and the pay/benefits. By that time in the process, the candidate usually has a good idea of the job and is eager to suggest a high level of pay at the top of the advertised bracket or, often, above the pay bracket. However, this isn’t always the case. One time in particular, an excellent candidate with outstanding qualifications surprised me by saying that since she wanted flextime, she would accept a rate below the pay bracket. Confused,I asked her if she wanted a reduction in hours below fulltime. She said no, she expected to work full-time and only wanted to come in a little late and would leave a little late to make up the time. I guess she figured this was a concession worth slashing her salary for, but our company has flextime. In fact, she could have asked for 5 fewer hours per week, still been considered full-time by our company policies, and negotiated for above the advertised pay grade. I knew the manager would be highly interested in this candidate and that he could probably get her to work the longer full-time hours at a lower rate of pay. That outcome might be best for the company, or it might not. She obviously didn’t fully understand the company policies in her favor, and she was unsophisticated about her worth in the marketplace. What should I have done?


570



Questions

14-8. If the human resource manager coached the applicant to request a higher salary, did the coaching work against the interests of the organization? What was the responsibility of the human resource manager to put the organization’s financial interests first?Answer: The students’ responses to this question will vary depending on individual ethical position. Those with a position that this violated the client relationship will likely base it on a contractual obligation. Those in favor of the action will probably emphasize that by working toward the higher salary, potential future conflict over inequity was averted.

14-9. What do you see as the potential downside of the human resource manager abstaining from discussing the pay issue further with the candidate?Answer: Responses to this question will vary by student, but many will suggest that if no discussions take place, there is the potential for issues related to trust and ethics to emerge.

14-10. If the candidate were hired at the reduced rate she proposed, how might the situation play out over the next year when she gets to know the organization and pay standards better?Answer: Again, responses to this question will vary by student. Some will argue that the candidate will feel violated – that the organization has taken advantage of the situation. Others though, may contend that this could ultimately serve to strengthen the job candidate.

Case Incident 1Choosing Your Battles

This exercise contributes to: Learning Objective: Show how individual differences influence negotiationsLearning Outcome: Describe the nature of conflict and the negotiation processAACSB: Written and oral communication; Reflective thinking

While much of this chapter has discussed methods for achieving harmonious relationships and getting out of conflicts, it’s also important to remember there are situations in which too little conflict can be a problem. As we noted, in creative problem-solving teams, some level of task conflict early in the process of formulating a solution can be an important stimulus to innovation.

However, the conditions must be right for productive conflict. In particular, individuals must feel psychologically safe in bringing up issues for discussion. If people fear that


571


what they say is going to be held against them, they may be reluctant to speak up or rock the boat. Experts suggest that effective conflicts have three key characteristics: they should (1) speak to what is possible, (2) be compelling, and (3) involve uncertainty.

So how should a manager “pick a fight?” First, ensure that the stakes are sufficient to actually warrant a disruption. Second, focus on the future, and on how to resolve the conflict rather than on whom to blame. Third, tie the conflict to fundamental values. Rather than concentrating on winning or losing, encourage both parties to see how successfully exploring and resolving the conflict will lead to optimal outcomes for all. If managed successfully, some degree of open disagreement can be an important way for companies to manage simmering and potentially destructive conflicts.

Do these principles work in real organizations? The answer is yes. Dropping its old ways of handling scheduling and logistics created a great deal of conflict at Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad, but applying these principles to managing the conflict helped the railroad adopt a more sophisticated system and recover its competitive position in the transportation industry. Doug Conant, CEO of Campbell Soup, increased functional conflicts in his organization by emphasizing a higher purpose to the organization’s efforts rather than focusing on whose side was winning a conflict. Thus, a dysfunctional conflict environment changed dramatically and the organization was able to move from one of the world’s worst-performing food companies to one that was recognized as a top performer by both the Dow Jones Sustainability Index and Fortune 500 data on employee morale.

Sources: Based on S. A. Joni and D. Beyer, “How to Pick a Good Fight,” Harvard Business Review (December 2009), pp. 48–57; and B. H. Bradley, B. E. Postlewaite, A. C. Klotz, M. R. Hamdani, and K. G. Brown., “Reaping the Benefits of Task Conflict in Teams: The Critical Role of Team Psychological Safety Climate,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Advance publication (July 4, 2011), doi: 10.1037/a0024200.

Questions

14-11. How could you ensure sufficient discussion of contentious issues in a work group? How can managers bring unspoken conflicts into the open without making them worse?Answer: The answers to this question will vary. Some students will indicate that conforming the process to the concepts of equity theory is the best way to lead the discussions to work. If all parties believe they are equally represented in the discussion, then it is more likely to remain positive. To access unspoken conflict, the manager should encourage all employees to bring up their concerns. Again, perceptions of fairness are essential to making this work.

14-12. How can negotiators utilize conflict management strategies to their advantage so that differences in interests lead not to dysfunctional conflicts but rather to positive integrative solutions?Answer: Exhibit 14-4 shows major resolution and stimulation techniques that allow managers to control conflict levels. The students’ answers to this question should include ideas contained in this exhibit.


572


14-13. Can you think of situations in your own life in which silence has worsened a conflict between parties? What might have been done differently to ensure that open communication facilitated collaboration instead?

Answer: This question’s answer will be the opinion of the student.

Case Incident 2Twinkies, Rubber Rooms, and Collective Bargaining

This exercise contributes to: Learning Objective: Assess the roles and functions of third-party negotiationsLearning Outcome: Describe the nature of conflict and the negotiation processAACSB: Written and oral communication; Reflective thinking

U.S. labor unions have seen a dramatic decline in membership in the private sector, where only 6.5 percent of the employees are unionized. The situation is very different in the public sector, however, where 40 percent of government employees are unionized. These numbers are the result of very different trends – in the 1950s, the situation was approximately reversed, with roughly 35 percent of private-sector workers and 12 percent of public-sector employees belonging to unions.

Research suggests two core reasons why public-sector unions have grown. First, changes in state and national labor laws have made it easier for public-sector unions to organize. Some also argue that enforcement agencies have tolerated anti-union actions in the private sector. Second, the location of private-sector jobs has changed; high-paying union jobs in the manufacturing sector, the steel industry, and other former bastions of private-sector unionization have mostly gone overseas, or to the South, where it’s harder to organize workers. On the other hand, it’s difficult to move government jobs away from the communities they serve. A Philadelphia school, for example, couldn’t just decide it was going to relocate its teachers to Atlanta. Also, public-sector labor forces tend to be more static than in the private sector. More plants than post offices have closed.

Are these trends problems? Though this is partly a political question, let’s look at it objectively in terms of plusses and minuses.

On the positive side, by negotiating as a collective, unionized workers are able to earn, on average, roughly 15 percent more than their non-union counterparts. Unions also can protect the rights of workers against capricious actions by employers. Consider the following example:

Lydia criticized the work of five of her co-workers. They were not amused and posted angry messages on a Facebook page. Lydia complained to her supervisor that the postings violated the employer's "zero tolerance" policy against "bullying and harassment." The employer investigated and, agreeing that its policy had


573


been violated, fired the five. The National Labor Relations Board, however, ruled this an unfair labor practice and ordered reinstatements.

Most of us would probably prefer not to be fired for Facebook posts. This is a protection unions can provide.

On the negative side, public-sector unions at times have been able to negotiate employment arrangements that are hard to sustain. For more than 25 years, the union that represents California’s prison guards – the California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA) – lobbied the state to increase the number of prisons and to increase sentences (such as via the “three strikes” law). The lobbying worked; prisons were built, the prison population exploded, and thousands of new guards were hired. The average CCPOA member now makes more than $100,000 per year and can retire at age 50 with 90 percent of salary as pension. California now spends more money on prisons than on education.

Further, it is often extremely difficult to fire a member of a public-sector union, even if performance is exceptionally poor. Aryeh Eller, 46, a former music teacher at Hillcrest High School in Queens, was pulled from the classroom for repeated sexual harassment of female students, a charge to which he has admitted. While in the “rubber room,” where union members unfit to work are paid their full wage to just sit, Eller has seen his salary increase to $85,000 due to automatic seniority increases under the teachers’ union contract. Such protections exist for teachers in nearly every state, protecting even those arrested for having sex with minors and giving minors drugs. Teachers are not alone. There are rubber rooms for many types of union jobs.

Reasonable people can disagree about the pros and cons of unions, and whether they help or hinder an organization’s ability to be successful. There isn’t any dispute, however, that they often figure prominently in the study of workplace conflict and negotiation strategies.

Sources: “Aryeh Eller, New York Teacher Removed from Classroom for Sexual Harassment, Paid Nearly $1 Million to Do Nothing,” Huffington Post (January 28, 2013), downloaded May 20, 2013, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com; “Hispanics United of Buffalo, Inc. and Carlos Ortiz,” Case 03–CA–027872, National Labor Relations Board (December 14, 2012), downloaded May 13, 2013, from http://www.nlrb.gov/cases-decisions/board-decisions; and J. Weissmann, “Who's to Blame for the Hostess Bankruptcy: Wall Street, Unions, or Carbs?” The Atlantic (November 16, 2012), downloaded on May 29, 2013, from http://www.theatlantic.com/.

Questions

14-14. Labor–management negotiations might be characterized as more distributive than integrative. Do you agree? Why do you think this is the case? What, if anything, would you do about it?Answer: The response to this question will vary depending on the student’s opinion.

14-15. If unions have negotiated unreasonable agreements, what responsibility does management or the administration bear for agreeing to these terms? Why do you think they do agree?


574


Answer: Again, student response depends on opinion. But, one idea that should come from the process is that some believe that mediation is a trade-off to justice. Instead of legal disputes being resolved in the judicial system that calls for decision to be made by peer groups, mediation results in resolutions fostered by a single professional. The goal of mediation is harmony, not justice.

14-16. If you were advising union and management representatives about how to negotiate an agreement, drawing from the concepts in this chapter, what would you tell them? Answer: Again, responses to this question will vary based on the opinion of the student.

Instructor’s ChoiceNegotiating with the Labor Relations Board

This exercise contributes to: Learning Objective: Assess the roles and functions of third-party negotiationsLearning Outcome: Describe the nature of conflict and the negotiation processAACSB: Written and oral communication; Reflective thinking

Power struggles often end up as negotiation and bargaining scenarios. One place to trace historic negotiations between management and labor is the National Labor Relations Board website (see www.nlrb.gov). Go to the website and link to Case Summaries found under the News Room menu. Choose a famous case, summarize the conflict, describe the negotiation issues, and summarize the eventual outcome of the case. Once you have done this, indicate the form of conflict present and how the negotiation process helped to resolve the conflict.

Instructor DiscussionThe NLRB website has several famous cases documented and filed. It is interesting that the NLRB often changes its political stance on issues as members often change as new governmental administrations are brought into power. For this reason, the viewer can see that some issues are revisited. It is useful to present a contemporary case to illustrate the negotiation process. Since the website is updated frequently, the instructor can choose a case that has just been heard or one that is more classical in nature. Based on the way the case is presented on the website, the instructor could present the case without revealing the ruling and have the students try to determine what the eventual ruling (and justifying reasons) was.


575


Teaching Notes


Exploring OB Topics on the Web

This exercise contributes to: Learning Objectives: Outline the conflict process; Apply the five steps of the negotiation process Learning Outcome: Describe the nature of conflict and the negotiation processAACSB: Written and oral communication; Reflective thinking

1. Let’s start out with a laugh. Go to http://www.despair.com/demotivators/dysfunction.html and see what their commentary is for dysfunction. While you are there, feel free to look at some of the other posters that “spoof” traditional motivational posters found on the walls of businesses and schools. Enjoy!

2. How do you handle conflict when it arises? Seven guidelines for handling conflict can be found at http://www.mediate.com/articles/jordan2.cfm. Think of a conflict you are involved in or have been involved in recently. How could you have applied these guidelines to that situation? Is there room for improvement in your conflict management skills? Write a short reflection paper (or a paragraph or two) on one of the guidelines and how you plan to use it in future conflicts.

3. If you have never been involved in labor negotiations, it can be a challenging task—especially if you lack experience in the process. Preparation is key. Every manager should have an understanding of the process. Learn more at http://www.mediate.com/articles/lynnK.cfm. Are there lessons in this article that could be applied to any negotiation process—for example, buying a car, negotiating a contract with a vendor, etc.? Think of a circumstance where you might find yourself explaining a negotiation process to a friend and the skills necessary to be successful. (Use the article for ideas.) Write out the scenario and skills and bring it to class.

4. Negotiating with other cultures requires an understanding of the culture and the individuals with whom you are negotiating. Go to http://www.mediate.com/articles/lauchli.cfm to learn more about negotiation and dispute resolution with the Chinese. As the book has discussed, the Chinese are a collectivist culture, different in many ways from Americans. Write two or three things of interest you learned from reading this article and bring it to class.


576

http://www.mediate.com/articles/lauchli.cfm

http://www.mediate.com/articles/lynnK.cfm

http://www.mediate.com/articles/jordan2.cfm

http://www.despair.com/demotivators/dysfunction.html



5. Read the article by Stella Ting-Toomey entitled “Intercultural Conflict Management: A Mindful Approach” at: http://www.uri.edu/iaics/content/2008v17n4/02%20Ling%20Chen%20&%20Kat%20Cheung.pdf. Write a short synopsis of the three major points of the paper. What is the most interesting or intriguing idea put forth in the paper? Do you agree or disagree with her assessments? Bring your written work to class for further discussion.

6. The University of Colorado offers a great deal of information regarding conflict management on their website. One page provides abstracts of selected readings on transformative conflict resolution. Some readings are more global in nature—others are geared to the organization. Go to http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/transform/abslist.htm and select three abstracts of interest to you. Print them off and bring them to class. Prepare a short presentation on what you learned from these articles. Be prepared to talk about them in front of the class or in small groups.


577

http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/transform/abslist.htm

http://www.uri.edu/iaics/content/2008v17n4/02%20Ling%20Chen%20&%20Kat%20Cheung.pdf

http://www.uri.edu/iaics/content/2008v17n4/02%20Ling%20Chen%20&%20Kat%20Cheung.pdf