• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

Card Range To Study



Play button


Play button




Click to flip

Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;

Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;

H to show hint;

A reads text to speech;

30 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
process that begins when one party perceives that a another party is about to negatively something that the first party cares about
Traditional conflict view
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
Interactionist view
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
managed conflict view
the view that instead of encouraging functional conflict and discouraging dysfunctional conflict that it is much more important to resolve conflict productively
Task conflict
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
Relationship conflict
not productive
has to do with interpersonal relationships
Process conflict
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
Resolution focused view of conflict
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
Conflict process
1. potential opposition or incompatibility
2. cognition and personalization
3. Intentions
4. behavior
5. outcomes
Stage 1: potential opposition or incompatibility
this arises from three conditions: communication, structure, and personal variables
1. semantic differences (jargon, interpretation of meaning, translation, age, word connotation)
2. misunderstandings
result from too little or too much information provided
3. noise
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
Personal variables
personality (disagreeable, neurotic, and self-monitoring = conflict)
emotion (come to work angry facilitate anger and tension)
Stage 2 Cognition and personalization
if one of the conditions in stage one affects something that a party cares about causes
perceived conflict (not personalized)
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
Stage 3: Intentions
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
satisfy your interests regardless of the impact on the other parties

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

win win solution
You are aware that there is a conflict but chose to ignore it or suppress it by avoiding the person
Appeasing opponent by putting his interests way above yours and sacrificing to maintain the relationship
both party experiences win and loss

no clear winner or loser

willingness to ration object and accept solution that provides incomplete satisfaction for everyone
Stage 4: Behavior
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)
Functional conflicts
increase performance
increase quality of decision (evaluate all opinions and options)
increase trust
increase respect
increases interest and curiosity
increases creativity and innovation
Dysfunctional conflict
uncontrolled opposition breeds discontent
dissolves common tides
lowers performance
hampers communication
lowers cohesiveness
subordinates group goals
reduce trust and satisfaction
lowers info sharing
Managing conflict
reward dissenters
punish conflict avoiders
open discussions = mutually accepted solution
emphasize shared goals
emphasize shared interest in resolving conflict
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)
always comes first

share interests, positions, info but not BATNA

expand the pie

win win solution

facilitates long term relationships
Distributive Bargaining
fixed pie perception

opposing interests
Bargaining diagram
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
Negotiation process
see slides and readings
Individual differences in negotiation process
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)