Buad 309 Chapter 13

Front 1

Trends that conspire to make organizational conflict inevitable

Back 1

constant change, greater employee diversity, more teams (virtual and self-managed), less face-to-face communication (more electronic interaction), a global economy with increased cross-cultural dealings.

Front 2

Conflict

Back 2

is a process in which one party perceives that its interests are being opposed or negatively affected by another party. The word perceives reminds us that sources of conflict and issues can be real or imagined.

Front 3

Three metaphors and accompanying workplace expressions:

Back 3

conflict as war (we shot down that idea), Conflict as opportunity (what are al the possibilities for solving this problem), conflict as journey (let’s search for a common ground).

Front 4

Win-win beats win-lose

Back 4

in both conflict management and negotiation

Front 5

A conflict continuum

Back 5

too little conflict= tend to be plagued by apathy, lack of creativity indecision, and missed deadlines. Excessive conflict= can erode organizational performance because of political infighting, dissatisfaction, lack of teamwork, and turnover.

Front 6

Functional conflict

Back 6

organization’s interests. (constructive or cooperative conflict) win-win attitude to solve problems and find common ground

Front 7

Dysfunctional

Back 7

threatens organization’s interest

Front 8

Situations tending to produce either functional or dysfunctional conflict are

Back 8

incompatible personalities or value systems, overlapping or unclear job boundaries, competition for limited resources, interdepartmental/intergroup comptition, inadequate communication, interdependent tasks, organizational complexity (hierarchy and levels), unreasonable or unclear [policies, standards, or rules, unreasonable deadlines or extreme time pressures, coactive decision making, decision making by consensus, unmet expectations (unrealistic expectations), unresolved or suppressed conflicts.

Front 9

Tjosvold’s three desired outcomes

Back 9

Agreement (equitable and fair agreements are the best), stronger relationships (build bridges of goodwill and trust for future use), Learning (promote greater self-awareness and creative problem solving).

Front 10

Personality conflict

Back 10

interpersonal opposition driven by personal dislike or disagreement, each of us have a unique way of interfacing with others.

Front 11

Day of contemplation:

Back 11

a one-time-only day off with pay to allow a problem employee to recommit to the organization’s values and mission.

Front 12

In-group thinking

Back 12

thinking of your group as being better than others , more moral, more positive, and see outsiders as a threat. It is one more fact of organizational life that virtually guarantees conflict

Front 13

Contact hypothesis

Back 13

the more the members of different groups interact, the less intergroup conflict they will experience, used for reducing intergroup conflict. However the conflict still overwhelms the positive interactions, priority number one for managers faced with the intergroup conflict is to identify and root out specific negative linkages among groups.

Front 14

Programmed conflict

Back 14

encourages different opinions without protecting management’s personal feelings. Devil’s advocacy and the dialectic method. Stimulating functional conflict.

Front 15

Devil’s advocacy

Back 15

assigning someone the role of critic. Intended to generate critical thinking and reality testing.

Front 16

Dialectic method

Back 16

fostering a debate of opposing viewpoints to better understand and issue. Drawback: winning the debate may overshadow the issue at hand.

Front 17

A devil’s advocate decision program

Back 17

a proposed course of action is generated, a devil’s advocate(individual or group) is assigned to criticize the proposal, the critique is presented to key decision makers, any additional information relevant to the issues is gathered, the decision to adopt, modify, or discontinue the proposed course of action is taken, the decision is monitored

Front 18

The Dialectic Decision Method

Back 18

a proposed course of action is generated, assumptions underlying the proposal are identified, a conflicting counterproposal is generated based on different assumptions, advocates of each position present and debate the merits of their proposals before key decision makers, the decision to adopt either position, or some other position is made, the decision is monitored

Front 19

5 conflict-handling styles

Back 19

integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding, and compromising

Front 20

Integrating (problem solving):

Back 20

high concern for others, high concern for self. Confront the issue and cooperatively identify the problem, generate and weight alternative solutions and select a solution. Last long, won’t work with conflicts of value systems, and is time consuming.

Front 21

Obliging (smoothing):

Back 21

low concern for self, high concern for others: playing down differences while emphasizing commonalities. Good if want something in return. Not good for complex or worsening problems. But encourages cooperation, temporary fix though.

Front 22

Dominating (forcing):

Back 22

low concern for others, high concern for self. I win you lose mentality, appropriate when unpopular solutions must be implemented, the issue is minor, a deadline is near, or a crisis looms. Speed is strength, breeds resentment

Front 23

Avoiding:

Back 23

low concern for self, low concern for others. Suppression of the issue, passive withdrawal form the problem, good for trivial issues or when the cost of confrontation outweigh the benefits. Not good for difficult or worsening problems. Temporary fix only

Front 24

Compromising:

Back 24

give and take approach involving moderate concern for both self and others. Good when parties have opposite goals or possess equal power. Not good if leads to inconclusive action (failure to meet deadlines), no losers, but temporary fix that can stifle creative problem solving

Front 25

Conflict triangle

Back 25

conflicting parties involve a third person rather than dealing directly with each other. Tend to form political coalitions because there is power in numbers

Front 26

Detriangling

Back 26

least political, low risk of dysfunctional conflict.

Front 27

More triangling

Back 27

most political, high risk of dysfunctional conflict

Front 28

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR

Back 28

avoiding costly lawsuits by resolving conflicts informally or through mediation or arbitration.

Front 29

Facilitation

Back 29

third party, usually a manager, informally urges disputing parties to deal directly with each other in a positive and constructive manner. This can be a form of detriangling.

Front 30

Conciliation

Back 30

a neutral third party informally acts as a communication conduit between disputing parties, good when won’t meet face-to-face,.

Front 31

Peer review

Back 31

a panel of trustworthy co-workers, selected for their ability to remain objective, hears both sides of a dispute and in an informal and confidential meeting.

Front 32

Ombudsman

Back 32

someone who works for the organization, and is widely respected and trusted by his or her co-workers, hear grievances on a confidential basis and attempts to arrange a solution

Front 33

Mediation

Back 33

the mediator- a trained, third-party neutral- actively guides the disputing parties in exploring innovative solutions to the conflict, but unlike a arbitrator a mediator doesn’t not render a decision.

Front 34

Arbitration

Back 34

disputing parties agree ahead of time to accept the decision of the neutral arbitrator in a formal court like setting, often complete with evidence and witnesses. Can be voluntary or mandatory. Decisions based on legal merits

Front 35

Negotiation

Back 35

give and take process between conflicting interdependent parties with different preferences. Two types: distributive and integrative.

Front 36

Distributive

Back 36

: usually involves a single issue- a fixed pie- in which one person gains at the expense of the other. Win-lose

Front 37

Integrative

Back 37

an agreement can be found that is better for both parties, more than one issue, each party values the issues differently. Win- win

Front 38

Mythical “fixed pie”:

Back 38

thinking that what is good for the other side must be bad for us.

Front 39

Managers can keep from getting too deeply embroiled in conflict by applying four lessons form recent research:

Back 39

establishing challenging and clear goals, disagree in a constructive and reasonable manner, do not get caught up in conflict triangles, and refuse to get caught in the aggression-breeds-aggression spiral.