Conflict And Negotiation

Front 1

Conflict

Back 1

process that begins when one party perceives that a another party is about to negatively something that the first party cares about

Front 2

Traditional conflict view

Back 2

the belief that conflict should be avoided because it indicates malfunction within the group

results from poor communication, lack of openness and trust, and failure to be responsive to the needs and aspirations of employees

Front 3

Interactionist view

Back 3

believes that conflict is not only good for a group but necessary for a group to perform effectively

underlies the assumption that harmonious, peaceful, cooperative groups will become static, apathetic, and unresponsive to needs for change and innovation
whereas groups with functional conflict can self critic, are viable, and are creative

Front 4

managed conflict view

Back 4

the view that instead of encouraging functional conflict and discouraging dysfunctional conflict that it is much more important to resolve conflict productively

Front 5

Task conflict

Back 5

an example of functional conflict that can enhance performance

has to do with goals and content of the work

most productive because it allows people to evaluate all alternatives, become more creative, and more open, innovative

not effective if the group is already open and discussing all their ideas (bad in a nominal group)

task conflict is not good for a group that performs routine tasks

Front 6

Relationship conflict

Back 6

not productive
has to do with interpersonal relationships

Front 7

Process conflict

Back 7

good in small doses

has to do how the work gets done

bad process conflict arises when their is an ambiguity of roles or responsibility

Front 8

Resolution focused view of conflict

Back 8

traditional: shortsighted, ignores that conflict is inevitable
interrationalist: not complete: ignores that any type of conflict can lead to a loss of trust or hurt feelings or loss of respect or cohesion
managed conflict: best combination of both because it realizes that conflict is inevitable and we should rather focus our efforts into dealing with it productively so there are no long term effects

Front 9

Conflict process

Back 9

1. potential opposition or incompatibility
2. cognition and personalization
3. Intentions
4. behavior
5. outcomes

Front 10

Stage 1: potential opposition or incompatibility

Back 10

this arises from three conditions: communication, structure, and personal variables

Front 11

Communication

Back 11

1. semantic differences (jargon, interpretation of meaning, translation, age, word connotation)
2. misunderstandings
result from too little or too much information provided
3. noise

Front 12

Structure

Back 12

size, degree of specialization, jurisdiction clarity, member-goal compatibility, leadership styles, reward systems, and dependency

big size, highly specialized, incompatible to goals, turnover rate, conflicting rewards, over dependency, ambiguity of responsibility = conflict

Front 13

Personal variables

Back 13

personality (disagreeable, neurotic, and self-monitoring = conflict)
emotion (come to work angry facilitate anger and tension)
values

Front 14

Stage 2 Cognition and personalization

Back 14

if one of the conditions in stage one affects something that a party cares about causes
perceived conflict (not personalized)
or
felt conflict (individuals get emotionally involved: anxiety, tension, frustration, hostility)

emotion plays a huge role here because we can oversimplify issues, lose trust, and put negative interpretations on the other parties behavior if we have negative emotion whereas positive emotion lets us see the conflict as more broad and reminds us to value our relationships and develop more innovative solutions

Front 15

Stage 3: Intentions

Back 15

Intentions intervene between people's perceptions and emotions and overt behavior

important because a lot of conflicts escalate because people interpret other people intentions incorrectly also tricky because behavior does not always match intentions

2 dimensions:
cooperative (put the other parties concerns ahead of your won)
aggressive (put your own concerns first)

4 types of intentions:
1. competing
2. accommodating
3. collaborating
4. avoiding
5. compromising

Front 16

Competing

Back 16

satisfy your interests regardless of the impact on the other parties

completely aggressive

Front 17

Collaborating

Back 17

solve the problem together by clarifying differences rather than accommodating various view points

win win solution

Front 18

Avoiding

Back 18

You are aware that there is a conflict but chose to ignore it or suppress it by avoiding the person

Front 19

Accommodating

Back 19

Appeasing opponent by putting his interests way above yours and sacrificing to maintain the relationship

Front 20

Compromising

Back 20

both party experiences win and loss

no clear winner or loser

willingness to ration object and accept solution that provides incomplete satisfaction for everyone

Front 21

Stage 4: Behavior

Back 21

this stage is a dynamic process of the last stage (intentions)

conflict becomes visible through actions, statements, and reactions to implement their own intentions

exists on a continuum
high on continuum = strikes, riots, war (dysfunctional)
low on continuum = subtle, controlled, indirect tension (functional)

Front 22

Functional conflicts

Back 22

increase performance
increase quality of decision (evaluate all opinions and options)
increase trust
increase respect
increases interest and curiosity
increases creativity and innovation

Front 23

Dysfunctional conflict

Back 23

uncontrolled opposition breeds discontent
dissolves common tides
lowers performance
hampers communication
lowers cohesiveness
subordinates group goals
reduce trust and satisfaction
lowers info sharing

Front 24

Managing conflict

Back 24

reward dissenters
punish conflict avoiders
open discussions = mutually accepted solution
emphasize shared goals
emphasize shared interest in resolving conflict

Front 25

Negotiation

Back 25

the process by which two or more parties decide how they are going to allocate resources

important because impact the tangible and intangible (relationship between the negotiators and the way negotiator perceives self)

Front 26

Integrative

Back 26

always comes first

share interests, positions, info but not BATNA

expand the pie

win win solution

facilitates long term relationships

Front 27

Distributive Bargaining

Back 27

fixed pie perception

opposing interests

Front 28

Bargaining diagram

Back 28

target point: want to achieve
resistance point: lowest possible outcome acceptable (BATNA)

distance between two resistance points = settlement range

distance between target and resistance point = aspiration range

Front 29

Negotiation process

Back 29

see slides and readings

Front 30

Individual differences in negotiation process

Back 30

1.personality (extrovert and compliant = bad distributive good integrative)
2. moods/emotions (anger = bad when lower position good when higher, should be happy and nice when integrative creates better relationships)
3. gender (women stereotype bad negotiators b/c care more about interpersonal relationships self fulfilling prophesy)