Conflicts and Negotiations in the Workplace PDF

Chapter 11 Con,icts and Nego3a3ons in the Workplace Learning Objectives De8ne con,ict and types of con,icts Structural Sources of Con,ict Con,ict Handling Con3ngencies Structural Approaches to Con,ict Management Types of Third Party Interven3on Resolving Con,ict through Nego3a3...

Chapter 11 Con,icts and Nego3a3ons in the Workplace Learning Objectives De8ne con,ict and types of con,icts Structural Sources of Con,ict Con,ict Handling Con3ngencies Structural Approaches to Con,ict Management Types of Third Party Interven3on Resolving Con,ict through Nego3a3on Con2ict Con,ict is a process in which one party perceives that its interests are being opposed or nega3vely aHected by another party Emerging Views: Task vs Relationship Con2ict Task (construc3ve) con,ict Par3es focus on the issue, respect people with other points of view Try to understand logic/assump3ons of each posi3on Rela3onship con,ict Focus on personal characteris3cs (not issues) as the source of con,ict Try to undermine each other’s worth/competence Accompanied by strong nega3ve emo3ons © Caiaimage/Glow Images Con2ict is based on perception hOps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZOVWzKzpNg The Con2ict Process Model Conflict Sources of Perceptions Manifest Conflict Conflict and Conflict Outcomes Emotions Conflict Escalation Cycle The Relationship Between Con2ict and Outcomes Is Con2ict Good or Bad? Con,ict is a process in which one part perceives that its interests are being opposed or nega3vely aHected by another party Nega3ve Outcomes Posi3ve Outcomes Wastes 3me, energy, resources Fuller debate of decision choices Less informa3on sharing, produc3vity Decision assump3ons are ques3oned More organiza3onal poli3cs Poten3ally generates more crea3ve ideas More job dissa3sfac3on, turnover, stress Improves responsiveness to external environment Weakens team cohesion (when con,ict is within team) Increases team cohesion (con,ict with other teams) Minimizing Relationship Con2ict Goal: encourage task con,ict, minimize rela3onship con,ict Problem: rela3onship con,ict o^en develops when engaging in task con,ict Three condi3ons that minimize rela3onship con,ict during task con,ict: Emo3onal intelligence Cohesive team Suppor3ve team norms Sources of Con2icts Incompa3ble goals DiHeren3a3on Interdependence Scarce Resources Ambiguous rules Poor communica3ons Structural Sources of Con2ict (1 of 2) One party’s goals perceived to interfere Incompatible with other’s goals Goals Manifests due to differences in how to achieve goals Different values/beliefs Differentiation Explains cross-cultural, generational, merger conflict Conflict increases with interdependence Interdependence Parties more likely to interfere with each other Structural Sources of Con2ict (2 of 2) Scarce Motivates competition for the resource Resources Ambiguous Creates uncertainty, threatens goals Rules Encourages political behavior Rely on stereotypes Communication Less motivation to communicate Problems Arrogant language escalates conflict Five Con2ict Handling Styles High Forcing Problem-solving Assertiveness Compromising Avoiding Yielding Low High Cooperativeness Con2ict Handling Contingencies (1 of 3) Problem solving (win-win orienta3on) Best when: - Interests are not perfectly opposing - Par3es have trust/openness - Issues are complex Problem: other party may use informa3on to its advantage Forcing (win-lose orienta3on) Best when: - You have a deep convic3on about your posi3on - Quick resolu3on required - Other party would take advantage of coopera3on Problems: rela3onship con,ict, long-term rela3ons Con2ict Handling Contingencies (2 of 3) Avoiding Best when: - Con,ict is emo3onally-charged (rela3onship con,ict) - Con,ict resolu3on cost is higher than bene8ts Problems: doesn’t resolve con,ict; causes frustra3on Yielding Best when: - Other party has much more power - Issue is much less important to you than other party - Value/logic of your posi3on is imperfect Problems: increases other’s expecta3ons; imperfect solu3on Con2ict Handling Contingencies (3 of 3) Compromising Best when: - Par3es have equal power - Quick solu3on is required - Par3es lack trust/openness for problem solving Problem: Sub-op3mal solu3on, crea3ve solu3ons are not contemplated Structural Approaches to Con2ict Management (1 of 3) 1. Emphasize superordinate goals (goals that the con4ic5ng par5es value and whose a;ainment requires the joint resources and e>ort of those par5es) Emphasize common objec3ve not con,ic3ng sub-goals Reduces goal incompa3bility and diHeren3a3on 2. Reduce diHeren3a3on Reduce diHerences in values, aftudes, and experiences - e.g. Move employees around to diHerent jobs Structural Approaches to Con2ict Management (2 of 3) 3. Improve communica3on/ understanding Use dialogue to improve mutual understanding Contact hypothesis, Johari window Warning: Apply communica3on and understanding a^er reducing diHeren3a3on Structural Approaches to Con2ict Management (3 of 3) 4. Reduce interdependence Create buHers Use integrators Combine jobs 5. Increase resources Increase amount of resources available 6. Clarify rules and procedures Establish rules and procedures Clarify roles and responsibili3es Resolving Con2ict through Negotiation Nego%a%on refers to decision making situa3ons in which two or more interdependent par3es aOempt to reach an agreement. Distribu%ve: When the goals of two or more people are zero-sum so that one can gain only at the other’s expense. Integra%ve: When par3es’ goals are linked, but not zero-sum, so that one person’s goal achievement does not block the goal achievement of another. Distributive v s Integrative er u Bargaining Source: Based on R. J. Lewicki and J. A. Litterer, Negotiation (Homewood, I L: Irwin, 1985), p. 280. Types of Third-Party Intervention Third party con,ict resolu3on is any aOempt by a rela3vely neutral person to help con,ic3ng par3es resolve their diHerence High Mediation Inquisition Level of Process Control Arbitration Low Level of Decision Control High Types of Third -Party Intervention (2 of 2) Arbitra%on: Arbitrators have high control over the 8nal decision but low control over the process. Inquisi%on: Inquisitors control tall discussion about the con,ict. They have high decision control because they choose the form of con,ict resolu3on and they also have high process control. Media%on: Mediators have high control over the interven3on process. Their main purpose is to manage the process and context of interac3on between the dispu3ng par3es. The 8nal decision is made by the par3es. How to Negotiate Five steps to nego3a3on: Developing a strategy De8ni3on of ground rules Clari8ca3on and jus38ca3on Bargaining and problem solving Closure and implementa3on Iden3fy BATNA: Best Alterna3ve To a Nego3ated Agreement. Langton, Robbins and Judge, Organizational Behaviour, Fifth Cdn. Ed. The Negotiation Process Developing a strategy De4ning ground rules Clari4cation and Justi4cation Bargaining and Problem Solving Source: This model is based on R. J. Lewicki, “Bargaining and Negotiation,” Exchange: The Organizational BehaviorTeaching Closure and Implementation Journal 6, no. 2 (1981), pp. 39-40. Langton, Robbins and Judge, Organizational Behaviour, Fifth Cdn. Ed. Preparing to Negotiate Develop goals and understand needs Know your BATNA and Power BATNA – The best alterna3ve to a nego3ated agreement; the outcome and individual face if nego3a3ons fail Bargaining zone- The zone between each party’s resistance point, assuming that there is overlap in this range Bargaining Zone $400 $475 $525 $600 Buyer’s aspiration range Seller’s aspiration range Bargaining Zone Buyer’s Seller’s Buyer’s Seller’s target resistance resistance target point point point point Langton, Robbins and Judge, Organizational Behaviour, Fifth Cdn. Ed. Situational In2uences on Negotiations Loca3on – easier to nego3ate on your own turf Physical sefng –sea3ng arrangements, etc. Audience – nego3ators are more compe33ve, make fewer concessions when audience is watching Give and Take by Adam Grant hOps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyXRYgjQXX0