Leadership and Group Process

Managing Conflict

Conflict is a form of interaction among parties that differ in interest, perceptions, and preferences.
Kolb, David A., Osland, Joyce S., and Rubin, Irwin M., Organizational behavior: An experiential approach, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 6th Edition.

Definitions
Conflict is the result of a perceived incompatibility between two or more goals, values or needs Intrapersonal conflict - the conflicts among an individuals values, goals or needs Interpersonal conflict - conflicts between two or more individuals with perceived differences in values, goals or needs Intergroup conflict - conflict between two or more groups e.g. staff versus line

Alternative views of conflict

Traditional view of conflict:
inherently bad; reflects poor management; should be eliminated

Contemporary view of conflict:

conflict is not inherently bad; should be managed; sometimes should be promoted; Functional conflict - contributes to performance Dysfunctional conflict - interferes with performance

Intensity of Conflict and Perfomance

positive Conflict outcome

neutral

negative
low moderate Conflict Intensity high

Sources of Conflict
Perceived differences in values, goals, or needs resulting from:
cultural differences individual differences, including personality task or role-based differences differences in power ambiguity with respect to roles, resources and tasks perceptual distortions

Organizational Sources of Conflict

Individual personality factors
authoritarianism; low self esteem

Poor communication Structural factors:

organizational size heterogeneity of employees high levels of participation departmental differences (goals, values, time horizons, rewards) competition for resources power differences

Latent

Stages of Conflict
Perceived

Felt Manifest Aftermath

Stages of conflict
Latent conflict - having a suspicion (or sense) that conflict may exist Perceived conflict - perceiving a conflict to exist, without being able to define why Felt conflict - awareness of conflict combined with an emotional reaction to it (e.g. anger, frustration, energized) Manifest conflict - parties act out the conflict (e.g. arguing, politicking, withdrawing) Conflict aftermath - the outcome influences future situations

Blue Book Exercise

Describe a conflict situation in which you where a participant. Did you resolve it. How did you do..

My conflict resolution style

Quiz 12-3 Page 377

Conflict Management Styles

high (assertive) Concern for self Force Collaborate

Compromise

low (unassertive)

Avoid

Accomodate

low (uncooperative)
Concern for Others

high (cooperative)

Conflict Management Styles

The competitive style is a desire to win ones own concerns at the expense of the other party, or to dominate The accommodative style favors appeasement, or satisfying the others concerns without taking care of ones own The sharing style is halfway between domination and appeasement

Conflict Management Styles

(contd)
The collaborative style reflects a desire to fully satisfy the desires of both parties The avoidant style combines unassertiveness and a lack of cooperation

Blue Book Exercise

Do you agree with the result. Elaborate. What style did you employ in the situation you described earlier. Which style do you think is the best style. Why?

Appropriate Situations for using different styles

When to Avoid
When an issue is trivial. When there is no chance of getting what you want. When the potential damage of confrontation is greater than the benefits if resolution. When you need to gather more information. When others can resolve the conflict more effectively. When you need to cool down, reduce tension, and regain perspective or composure.

When to Accommodate
When you realize you are wrong. When the issue is much more important to the other person than you. When you need a future favor (credit). When continuing the competition would damage the cause. When subordinates need to develop - to learn from our mistakes.

When to Compete
When quick, decisive action is necessary. On important issues for which unpopular courses of action need implementing. On issues vital to the group welfare, when you know you are right. When protection is needed against people who take advantage of noncompetitive behavior.

When to Collaborate
When both sets of concerns are too important to be compromised. When it is necessary to test your assumptions or better to understand the viewpoint of the other party. When there is a need to combine ideas from people with different perspectives. When commitment can be increased by incorporating the concerns of everyone into the proposal. When there is a history of bad feeling.

When to Compromise
When goals are important but not worth the effort of potential disruption from more aggressive players. When two opponents with equal power are strongly committed to mutually exclusive goals. When temporary settlements are needed on complex issues. When expedient solutions are needed under time pressures. As back-up when collaboration or competition fail.

Negative Consequences of Competing

Eventually being surrounded by "yes people." Fear of admitting error, ignorance, or uncertainty. Reduced communication. Damaged relationships. Lack of commitment from others. More effort during implementation to sell the solution.

Negative Consequences of Collaborating

Too much time spent on insignificant issues. Ineffective decisions can be made by people with limited knowledge of the situation. Unfounded assumptions about trust.

 No one is completely satisfied. Solutions tend to be short-lived. Cynical climate: perception by both parties that it is a "sellout." Larger issues, principles, long-term values and the welfare of the company can be lost by focusing on trivia or the practicality of implementation.

Negative Consequences of Compromising

Negative Consequences of Avoiding

Decisions made by default. Unresolved issues. Self-doubt created through lack of esteem. Creative input lost. Lack of credibility. Anger and hostility generated in subsequent discussions.

Negative Consequences of Accommodating

Decreased influence, respect, or recognition by too much deference. Laxity in discipline. Frustration as own needs are not met. Self-esteem undermined. Best solution may be lost.

Negotiation

Negotiation
Defined as the process by which parties establish what they are willing to give and accept in exchange
aspiration range a

acceptance
aspiration range b

target point a

resistance point b

resistance point a

target point b

Negotiation
Conditions Perception of resources Motives Definition of Interests Type of relationships cultivated Key skills Distributive fixed win-lose opposing short term Integrative variable win-win converging long term

Suitable conditions

political, communication , defining interests time & resources constrained

problem definition, creativity, empathy trust, time & skills available

Negotiating and Bargaining

Conflicts can be considered situations calling for negotiating and bargaining, or conferring with another person in order to resolve a problem Two approaches to negotiation:
Distributive bargaining Integrative bargaining

Negotiation Techniques
Begin with a plausible demand or offer Focus on interests, not position Search for the value in differences between the two sides Be sensitive to international differences in negotiating style

Negotiation
Communicating with another person to solve a problem (even if the other person has different preferences)
Also known as bargaining The result should satisfy both parties

2 Types of Negotiation
Distributive bargaining
Zero-sum conditions (fixed resources) Interests are 180 degrees apart When one wins, the other loses (win-lose) Short-term relationship

Integrative bargaining
Resources are not fixed (instead, they are variable) Interests are collaborative Both parties win (winwin) Long-term relationship

WIN-LOSE Negotiation
Distributive Bargaining (Win-Lose):
Winning the battle and losing the war Creates adversarial relationships Resentful losers often try to find a way to get back at the winners

4/29/2012

1/03

35

WIN WIN Negotiation

Integrative Bargaining (Win-Win): An opportunity for both sides to be happy

4/29/2012

1/03

36

Steps to Negotiation
Make a plausible, clear initial offer Focus on interests, not position
Always remember your goal Know the goal(s) of the other party

Be sensitive to interpersonal or cultural differences in communication style Be firm but friendly

Remember:
The other person is NOT your enemy. You both may have something the other person needs! The other person is not a fool. He/she is probably just as savvy as you are. Work together to find a win-win solution Try to end your negotiation in a positive light; you may need to deal with this person again in the future!

Remember: Individual Differences Matter!

An organization should choose the right person to do negotiations for their organization. This can depend on:
Personality traits Demographic characteristics (age, race) Personality variables (risk taking, locus of control, self-esteem, authoritarianism)
1/03 39

4/29/2012

 When negotiating, and preparing to negotiate, remember these 4 things:

People Interests Options Criteria

PEOPLE:
Separate the people from the problem

Maintain a relationship with the other party!!! Be soft on people, hard on the problem Work as partners Have empathy for the other party

4/29/2012

1/03

41

INTERESTS:
Focus on interests, not positions

Avoid becoming locked into a set position from the get-go Instead, mutually identify with all positions, whether they are:
Shared, Opposed, or Simply different
4/29/2012 1/03 42

OPTIONS:
Invent options for mutual gain Optimal solutions are difficult to obtain Solution: brainstorming Requires creativity and a commitment to joint problem-solving

4/29/2012

1/03

43

CRITERIA:
Insist on objective criteria

Avoid insisting on getting your own way

Look for objective criteria that are agreeable to both parties, such as:
Market value Expert opinion Law
4/29/2012 1/03 44

 Your negotiation has been a success if:

It produces a wise agreement (if agreement is even possible) It is efficient and does not waste time It improves (or at least does not harm) the relationship between the two parties
4/29/2012 1/03 45