Human Resources Chapter 11 Homework A confrontation or interaction between groups that harms the organization or hinders the achievement of organizational goals

Unlock access to all the studying documents.

View Full Document

Chapter Eleven: Managing Conflict and Negotiations

Chapter Synopsis

The chapter begins by noting that views on conflict have evolved from the perspective that it was

bad and should be eliminated to the position that conflict is neither inherently good nor bad, only

inevitable. The key issue now is not whether conflict exists, but how to handle it.

The authors then describe and evaluate five managerial strategies for resolving intergroup conflict,

each based on a different level of focus on internal and external concerns: dominating,

accommodating, problem solving, avoiding, and compromising.

The chapter concludes with ways to increase negotiation effectiveness.

Learning Objectives

• After completing this chapter, students should be able to:

• Explain the contemporary perspective on conflict

• Describe the causes of intergroup conflict.

• Identify several consequences of dysfunctional intergroup conflict

Key Terms

functional conflict—A confrontation between groups that enhances and benefits the organization’s

performance.

dysfunctional conflict—A confrontation or interaction between groups that harms the organization

or hinders the achievement of organizational goals.

pooled interdependence—Interdependence that requires no interaction between groups because

each group, in effect, performs separately.

Lecture Outline

The Chapter outline is organized to correspond with the PowerPoint slides.

The chapter title slide may be used as a background to introduce the class.

Learning objectives

Review the chapter learning objectives. These will be reviewed on the last slide of the pack.

Intergroup Conflict

In the past, many organizational practitioners operated on the assumption that any and all

conflict was bad and thus should be eliminated. Today we understand that is not the case. A

more accurate and enlightened view is that conflict is neither inherently good nor bad, but it is

inevitable. It is true that too much conflict can have negative consequences because it requires

time and resources to deal with it and because it diverts energy that could more constructively

be applied elsewhere. Too little conflict, on the other hand, can also be negative in that such a

state can lead to apathy and lethargy and provide little or no impetus for change and

Functional Conflict

A functional conflict is a confrontation between groups that enhances and benefits the

organization’s performance. Without this type of conflict in organizations, there would be little

commitment to change, and cost groups likely would become stagnant. Functional conflict can

lead to increased awareness of problems that need to be addressed, result in broader and

more productive searches for solutions, and generally facilitate positive change, adaptation,

and innovation.

Dysfunctional Conflict

toward goals in one group may prove extremely disruptive and dysfunctional in another group

(or at a different time for the same group). A group’s tolerance for stress and conflict can also

depend on the type of organization it serves.

Conflict and Organizational Performance (2 of 3)

As previously indicated, conflict may have either positive or negative consequences for the

organization, depending on how much exists and how it is managed. Every organization has an

optimal level of conflict that can be considered highly functional—it helps generate positive

Conflict and Organizational Performance (2 of 3)

Work interdependence occurs when two or more organizational groups must depend on one

another to complete their tasks. The conflict potential in such situations ranges from relatively

low to very high, depending on the nature of the interdependence. Three distinct types of

interdependence among groups have been identified: pooled, sequential, and reciprocal.

Exhibit 11.2 provides a visual representation of these three types.

Causes of Intergroup Conflict: Goal Differences

Ideally, interacting groups will always view their goals as mutually compatible and behave in

Causes of Intergroup Conflict: Perception

Goal differences can be accompanied by differing perceptions of reality, and disagreements

over what constitutes reality can lead to conflict.

Status incongruency conflicts concerning the relative status of different groups are common.

Inaccurate perceptions often cause one group to develop stereotypes about other groups.

While the differences between groups may actually be quite small, each group will tend to

exaggerate them.

Consequences of Dysfunctional Intergroup Conflict (1 of 2)

Consequences of Dysfunctional Intergroup Conflict (2 of 2)

When groups are engaged in a conflict, their cohesion tends to increase. Competition, conflict,

or perceived external threat usually result in group members putting aside individual

differences and closing ranks. Members become more loyal to the group, and group

membership becomes more attractive.

groups.

As conflict increases and perceptions become more distorted, all the negative stereotypes are

reinforced.

Communications between the groups in conflict usually break down. This can be extremely

dysfunctional, especially where sequential interdependence or reciprocal interdependence

relationships exist between groups.

EXHIBIT 11.3 Conflict- Resolution Grid

Exhibit 11.3 provides a framework, in the form of a conflict-resolution grid, for examining these

various approaches. As the exhibit suggests, one way of viewing conflict-resolution efforts

between groups is to examine the extent to which a conflicting group has an internal and

conflict. Depending upon the nature and conditions of the conflict, each of these five

approaches can represent an effective approach for conflict resolution management. We will

examine each of these approaches separately

Managing Conflict Through Resolution

A dominating approach to conflict resolution represents a group’s maximum focus on meeting

its own concerns, coupled with a minimal focus on meeting the concerns of the other group.

Dominating tends to be a power-oriented approach.

Frequently, some way can be found to avoid conflict. While avoiding may not bring any long–

run benefits, it can be an effective and appropriate strategy in some conflict situations.

Foremost among these is when avoiding is used as a temporary alternative. When the conflict

is a particularly heated one, for example, temporary avoidance gives the involved parties an

opportunity to cool down and regain perspective.

Compromising is a traditional method for resolving inter-group conflicts. With compromise,

there is no distinct winner or loser, and the resolution reached probably is not ideal for either

group. Compromising can be used very effectively when the goal sought (for example, money)

can be divided equitably. If this is not possible, one group must give up something of value as a

concession.

Which Approach to Use? (1 of 2)

While there are many different situations in which each of the approaches is valid, keep these

general points in mind:

Which Approach to Use? (1 of 2)

• Use a problem-solving approach when both groups are willing to invest time and effort to

reach a resolution that maximizes everyone’s outcome.

approaches (mainly dominating and problem solving) fail to resolve the issue.

EXHIBIT 11.4 An Overview of Intergroup Conflict

What this chapter has said thus far about intergroup conflict is summarized in Exhibit 11.4. The

exhibit illustrates the relationship between causes and types of conflict, the consequences of

approaches to conflict resolution vary across cultures. Important aspects of conflict are viewed

and experienced differently in different nations.

Stimulating Constructive Intergroup Conflict (1 of 2)

Throughout this chapter we have stressed that some conflict is beneficial. This point was first

made in the discussion on the contemporary perspective on conflict and is noted again in

Exhibit 11.4, which details some of the functional consequences of intergroup conflict. We have

Stimulating Constructive Intergroup Conflict (2 of 2)

A technique widely used to “bring back to life” a stagnant organization or subunit of an

organization is to hire or transfer in individuals whose attitudes, values, and backgrounds differ

from those of the group’s present members.

Changing the structure of the organization not only can help resolve intergroup conflict, but it is

also excellent for creating conflict.

Negotiations (1 of 3)

Frequently, an important part of the process of conflict resolution involves negotiations.

Negotiations may be viewed as a process in which two or more parties attempt to reach

acceptable agreement in a situation characterized by some level of disagreement.

Negotiations (2 of 3)

manager and subordinate decide on the completion date for a new project the subordinate has

just received); (2) within a group (most group decision-making situations); (3) between groups

(such as the purchasing department and a supplier regarding price, quality, or delivery date),

which has been the focus in this chapter; and (4) over the Internet. The Internet now serves as

negotiations and Internet transactions.

Negotiations (3 of 3)

Regardless of the setting or the parties involved, negotiations usually have at least four

elements. First, some disagreement or conflict exists. This may be perceived, felt, or manifest.

Second, there is some degree of interdependence between the parties. Third, the situation

Win-Lose Negotiating

The classical view suggests negotiations are frequently a form of a zero-sum game. That is, to

whatever extent one party wins something, the other party loses. A zero-sum situation

assumes limited resources, and the negotiation process is to determine who will receive these

resources. This is also known as distributive negotiating. The term refers to the process of

dividing, or “distributing,” scarce resources. Such a win–lose approach characterizes numerous

negotiating situations.

Win-Win Negotiating

Win–win, or integrative, negotiating brings a different perspective to the process. Unlike the

zero-sum orientation in win–lose, win–win negotiating is a positive-sum approach. Positive-sum

situations are those where each party gains without a corresponding loss for the other party.

This does not necessarily mean that everyone gets everything they wanted, for seldom does

Negotiating Tactics

To achieve a win–win or win–lose negotiation outcome, a variety of specific negotiation tactics

can be employed by managers. Some of the most frequently used tactics are:

2. The nibble. This tactic involves getting an additional concession or perk after an agreement

has been reached.

3. Joint problem solving. A manager should never assume that the more one side wins, the

more the other loses. Feasible alternatives not yet considered may exist.

4. Power of competition. Tough negotiators use competition to make opponents think they

don’t need them.

Variables that Affect Negotiation

Just as there is no one best way to manage, neither is there one best way to negotiate. The

selection of specific negotiation strategies and tactics depends on a number of variables. The

nature of the issues being negotiated is a critical consideration. For example, how one

Negotiation Outcomes

One useful way to think about desired outcomes is to distinguish between substantive and

relationship outcomes.

Substantive outcomes have to do with how the specific issue is settled. To strive to end up with

a bigger piece of the pie than the other party is to focus on a substantive outcome. On the

Increasing Negotiation Effectiveness

One model for increasing negotiating effectiveness is found in the work of the Dutch

management practitioner Willem Mastenbroek. Although the model is extremely

comprehensive, the key focus is on four activities.

1. Obtaining substantial results. This refers to activities that focus on the content of what is

being negotiated. Desirable outcomes cannot be achieved if the negotiations do not stay

constructively focused on the real issues

Specific activities might include attending to each party’s opinions, acting in a predictable and

serious manner, treating each party with respect, and showing a sense of humor. Being on

different sides of an issue does not have to mean being at odds personally.

Using Third-Party Negotiations

Sometimes third parties are called in when negotiations between the main parties have broken

down or reached an impasse. At other times, third parties may be part of the negotiation from

the beginning. In some instances, third-party involvement is imposed on the disputing parties;

in others, the parties themselves voluntarily seek out third-party assistance. In any event, the

instances of third-party negotiations appear to be increasing.

There are different kinds of third-party interventions, and third-party involvement has been

characterized in many different ways. One such typology suggests four basic kinds of

interventions. Mediation is where a neutral third party acts as a facilitator through the

application of reasoning, suggestion, and persuasion. Mediators facilitate resolution by

affecting how the disputing parties interact. Mediators have no binding authority; the parties

communication link between the disagreeing parties. A conciliator has no more formal

authority to influence the outcome than does a mediator. Finally, consultation is where a third

take place in the future.

Negotiating Globally

The number of global negotiations is increasing rapidly. The global deals, markets, and

relationships that organizations are forming require careful attention to culture’s impact on

style. Individuals steeped in specific cultures negotiate differently. Labeling any culture’s

negotiating style is too general and constraining. However, general characteristics and

tendencies have been observed and noted. The former ambassador from Singapore to the

United States noted that American negotiators generally (1) are prepared, (2) are plain

EXHIBIT 11.5 Cultural Effects on Negotiating Style

Exhibit 11.5 describes more than 300 negotiators from 12 countries. The Japanese emphasized

a win–win or integrative approach more than any other countries’ negotiators. The results also

indicate the direct communication styles used by Argentinean, American, and German

Wall and Blum Suggestions

In one form or another, negotiation is becoming an increasingly important part of the

manager’s job. A review of the topic of negotiation by Wall and Blum concludes with a set of

recommendations for managers on how to improve the negotiation process. They offer the

following suggestions: 1. Begin the bargaining with a positive overture—perhaps a small

concession—and then reciprocate the opponent’s concessions. 2. Concentrate on the

negotiation issues and the situational factors, not on the opponent or his or her characteristics.

In Review, Did We…

Instructors may wish to refer to the learning objectives to facilitate a review of the chapter

concepts.