McSh_OB9e_CH11_CONFLICT AND NEGOTIATION.pptx

Because learning changes everything. ® CHAPTER ELEVEN Conflict and Negotiation in the Workplace...

Because learning changes everything. ® CHAPTER ELEVEN Conflict and Negotiation in the Workplace Shutterstock/photobeps and Global Connections Icon: Shutterstock/Merfin © 2021 McGraw Hill. All rights reserved. Authorized only for instructor use in the classroom. No reproduction or further distribution permitted without the prior written consent of McGraw Hill.  Learning Objectives 1. Define conflict and debate its positive and negative consequences in the workplace. 2. Distinguish task from relationship conflict and describe three strategies to minimize relationship conflict during task conflict episodes. 3. Diagram the conflict process model and describe six structural sources of conflict in organizations. 4. Outline the five conflict-handling styles and discuss the circumstances in which each would be most appropriate. 5. Apply the six structural approaches to conflict management and describe the three types of third- party dispute resolution. 6. Discuss activities in the negotiation preparation, process, and setting that improve negotiation effectiveness. © McGraw Hill  Dysfunctional Conflict in the Air Overt conflict is rare among commercial airline crew members, but when these clashes do occur, the consequences can be costly for the airline and inconvenient for passengers. © McGraw Hill Conflict defined — the process in which one party perceives that its interests are being opposed or negatively affected by another party. © McGraw Hill 4  Is Conflict Good or Bad? Negative Outcomes Positive Outcomes Lower performance. Better decision making. Higher stress, Tests logic of arguments. Questions assumptions. dissatisfaction, turnover. Generates creative Less information sharing thinking. and coordination. More responsive to the More organizational politics. changing environment. Wasted resources. Stronger team cohesion Weaker team cohesion (when conflict with (when conflict within team). outside opponents). © McGraw Hill  Emerging View: Task versus Relationship Conflict Task conflict. Focuses on quality of ideas/arguments (logic, evidence, assumptions). Shows respect for all participants. Avoids critiquing opponent’s competence or power. Relationship conflict. Focuses on opponent’s character (experience, intelligence, credibility). Tries to win argument by undermining opponent’s credibility. Relies on status, assertive behavior. Dysfunctional consequences: Triggers defense mechanisms. Reduces trust: emphasizes differences in status/competence of parties. Reduces motivation to communicate: escalates conflict. © McGraw Hill  Minimizing Relationship Conflict during Task Conflict Goal: encourage task conflict, minimize relationship conflict. Emotional intelligence. Better at regulating emotions, less hostility. Better at reframing other’s hostility. Team development. Better mutual understanding. High cohesion: motivation to minimize relationship conflict. Psychological safety team norms. Perceived safety to constructively disagree. Norms encourage respect, show interest, open-minded. © McGraw Hill  The Conflict Process Exhibit 11.2. Model of the Conflict Process. Access the text alternate for slide image. © McGraw Hill  Structural Sources of Conflict at Uber In-fighting among Uber employees and managers can be traced to a competitive culture that pitted staff against each other to achieve their own career goals. Teams also battled against each other due to incompatible team goals as well as differentiation. © McGraw Hill Jeff Swensen/Getty Images  Structural Sources of Conflict 1 1. Incompatible goals. 3. Interdependence. One party’s goals seem All conflict requires to interfere with other’s interdependence. goals. Risk of conflict increases with level of 2. Differentiation. interdependence. Different training, values, beliefs, and experiences. © McGraw Hill  Structural Sources of Conflict 2 4. Scarce resources. 6. Communication Creates competition for problems. the resource. Poorly stated messages escalate conflict. 5. Ambiguous rules. Conflict causes emotive Creates uncertainty, messages. politics. Less communication amplifies conflict. © McGraw Hill  Interpersonal Conflict Handling Styles Exhibit 11.3. Interpersonal Conflict-Handling Styles. Source: C.K.W. de Dreu, A. Evers, B. Beersma, E.S. Kluwer, and A. Nauta, “A Theory- Based Measure of Conflict Management Strategies in the Workplace,” Journal of Organizational Behavior 22 (2001): 645–68. Reprinted with permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Access the text alternate for slide image. © McGraw Hill  Conflict Handling Styles Contingencies (1 of 3) Problem solving. Best when: Interests are not perfectly opposing. Parties have trust/openness. Issues are complex. Problems: takes time; information increases other’s power. Forcing. Best when: Quick resolution required. Your position has stronger logical or moral foundation. Other party would take advantage of cooperation. Problems: relationship conflict, long-term relations. © McGraw Hill  Conflict Handling Styles Contingencies (2 of 3) Avoiding. Best when: Conflict is emotionally-charged (relationship conflict). Parties want to maintain harmony. Cost of resolution outweighs its benefits. Problems: conflict unresolved; causes frustration/uncertainty. Yielding. Best when: Issue is less important to you than other party. Value/logic of your position is imperfect. Parties want to maintain harmony. Other party has much more power. Problems: increases other’s expectations. © McGraw Hill  Conflict Handling Styles Contingencies (3 of 3) Compromising. Best when: Single issue conflict with opposing interests. Parties lack time or trust for problem solving. Parties want to maintain harmony. Parties have equal power. Problem: Sub-optimal solution where mutual gains are possible. © McGraw Hill  Cultural and Gender Differences in Conflict-Handling Styles Cultural differences. Conflict handling preferences vary across cultures. Example: more avoidance style in collectivist cultures. Gender differences. Men use more (women less) forcing style. Female managers use more avoiding style. Women use slightly more problem solving, compromising, yielding. Reasons: motivation or expectations to protect relationships. © McGraw Hill  Structural Approaches to Conflict Management 1 1.Emphasize superordinate goals. Focus on common goals. Reduces goal incompatibility and may reduce differentiation. 2.Reduce differentiation. Create common experiences. Methods: meaningful interaction, rotating staff through departments/regions, build a strong culture. 3.Improve communication and understanding. Contact hypothesis and Johari window activities. Methods: daily interaction, Johari Window, intergroup mirroring. Warning: Need to first reduce differentiation. © McGraw Hill  Structural Approaches to Conflict Management 2 4.Reduce interdependence. Create buffers. Use integrators. Combine jobs into one. 5.Increase resources. Weigh costs versus conflict. 6.Clarify rules/procedures. Establish rules. Clarify roles, responsibilities, schedules, etc. © McGraw Hill  Types of Third-Party Intervention Exhibit 11.5. Types of Third-Party Intervention. Access the text alternate for slide image. © McGraw Hill  Choosing the Best Third-Party Intervention Strategy Managers prefer inquisitional strategy. Problem: Least effective. Not good procedural justice. Mediation: Highest potential satisfaction with process and outcomes. Arbitration: Use when mediation fails. © McGraw Hill  Negotiation: Definitions and Approaches Try to resolve divergent goals by redefining terms of interdependence. Distributive approach. Win–lose orientation. Most common when the parties have only one item to resolve. Integrative (mutual gains) approach. Win–win orientation. Better with multiple issues of different value to each party. © McGraw Hill fizkes/ShutterStock  Bargaining Zone Model Exhibit 11.6. Bargaining Zone Model of Negotiations. Access the text alternate for image. © McGraw Hill  Know Your BATNA and Power Best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA). Represents the estimated cost to you of walking away. Having more than one BATNA to a negotiation increases your power. Negotiation power. Higher with favorable sources and contingencies of power. Sources and contingencies of power also improve BATNA. © McGraw Hill fizkes/ShutterStock © McGraw Hill 24  Negotiation Process; Gather Information Sharing information is essential for successful negotiations. Objective: discover other party's needs behind stated offers. Information gathering strategies: Listen closely to the other party. Ask questions. Pay attention to nonverbal communication. Summarize other party’s statements. Communicate your inner thoughts/reactions to other’s proposals. © McGraw Hill fizkes/ShutterStock  Negotiation Process: Manage Concessions Concessions communicate priorities and motivation. Successful negotiators: Make fewer, smaller, and clearly-labeled concessions. State that the other party should reciprocate. Use multi-issue offers (not one issue at a time). © McGraw Hill fizkes/ShutterStock  Negotiation Process: Time and Relationships Manage time. Deadline effect, exploding offers, escalation of time commitment. Build the Relationship (trustworthiness). Discover common backgrounds and interests. Manage first impressions. Signal trustworthiness. Show awareness of shared negotiation norms and expectations. Use emotional intelligence. © McGraw Hill fizkes/ShutterStock  Negotiation Setting Location: Easier to negotiate on your own turf. Physical setting: Seating arrangements, spacing, formality. Audience: Negotiators are more competitive, make fewer concessions when audience is watching. © McGraw Hill fizkes/ShutterStock  Gender and Negotiation In negotiations, women (compared to men) tend to: Set lower target points, accept offers near their resistance points. Rely less on alternatives to improve their outcomes. Avoid engaging in negotiation (accept first offers). Receive more deceitful tactics by other negotiators. Be viewed less favorably when using effective negotiation tactics. Women tend to negotiate as well as men through training and experience. © McGraw Hill  End of Main Content Because learning changes everything. ® www.mheducation.com © 2021 McGraw Hill. All rights reserved. Authorized only for instructor use in the classroom. No reproduction or further distribution permitted without the prior written consent of McGraw Hill.